
Sure, everyone knows it’s not a good idea to falsify data. But what about somewhat lesser offenses that also undermine the reproducibility of your findings, such as only publishing studies that “work,” and reporting an unexpected finding as something you had predicted from the beginning? In 2012, a survey of more than 2,000 psychologists based in the U.S. found that most admitted to adopting at least one “questionable research practice.” But would psychologists in other countries say the same? (Answer: Yes.) A group of researchers led by Franca Agnoli at the University of Padova posed this question to 277 Italian psychologists; their results appear in PLOS ONE.
Retraction Watch: Why is it important to compare how many researchers engage in questionable practices in different countries?
Continue reading How many scientists admit to questionable research practices?

Two journals have retracted two papers by the same group within months of each other, after editors were independently tipped off that they contained duplicated figures representing different experiments.
In an unusual turn of events, a nutrition paper has come back to life a year after being pulled from its original publication.
Researchers in China have retracted a paper and corrected three others in a plant journal, citing problems with multiple figures.
When two surgeons in Greece learned that a patient had developed a rare side effect following weight loss surgery, they were eager to publish the case.
A food science journal has retracted a paper over “a breach of reviewer confidentiality,” after editors learned it contained text from an unpublished manuscript — which one of the authors appears to have reviewed for another journal.
Ask and ye shall receive: A journal has retracted a 2014 paper by Paolo Macchiarini,