Science has retracted two papers by Frank Sauer, of the University of California, Riverside, after the university found evidence of serious image manipulation.
Here’s the notice, signed by Science editor-in-chief Marcia McNutt: Continue reading Science retracts two papers for image manipulation
A bee researcher based in Congo has had two papers retracted, and a paper in Science corrected, for various reasons including unreliable data. The researcher, however, blames colonialism.
M. B. Théodore Munyuli is at the National Center for Research in Natural Sciences, CRSN-Lwiro, D.S. Bukavu, Kivu, and studies the distribution and diversity of bees. Here’s the notice from Psyche: A Journal of Entomology, for a paper on which Munyuli is the sole author: Continue reading Bee researcher in the Congo blames “injustice, segregation and colonialism” for retractions, Science correction
A new site, Stand Up 2 Science Bullies, launched last week:
www.standup2sciencebullies.com is a forum for scientists to share their experience and provide advice pertaining to scientific bullying. We welcome questions and comments from all scientists including students, faculty, and members of industry. We sincerely hope that this forum will serve as an informative resource for scientists who feel that they are being treated unfairly by other scientists.
Continue reading Scientists, do you feel bullied by critics? These chemists do
Woo-Suk Hwang is having quite a comeback.
The cloning researcher’s fall from grace in 2005 and 2006 was covered worldwide, featuring two high-profile retractions from Science and convictions (now under appeal) on charges he embezzled government funds and broke South Korea’s bioethics law. But as Nature reported last month in a profile focusing on Hwang’s Biotech Research Foundation: Continue reading Fraud, retractions no barrier to US cloning patent for Woo-Suk Hwang
On Saturday, we highlighted a great two-part series by Joseph Neff of the News & Observer diving into the story of “Stefan Franzen, a chemistry professor at North Carolina State University who has been trying unsuccessfully to correct the scientific record.” Today, that series became a three-part series, with a new story revealing that an investigation by the National Science Foundation (NSF) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) had found “reckless” falsification in the work in question.
One of the key papers in the controversy was published by Lina A. Gugliotti, Daniel L. Feldheim, and Bruce E. Eaton in Science in 2004 and cited 125 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge. (Eaton is now at the University of Colorado at Boulder.) In 2011, Nature reported on the situation: Continue reading Science hasn’t retracted paper that university, NSF investigators wanted withdrawn
About a month ago, we reported on a retraction by Pamela Ronald, of the University of California, Davis, and colleagues. We noted then that this was a case of scientists doing the right thing. Ronald contacted us after that post ran, and let us know that there would be another retraction shortly. That retraction notice has now appeared, in Science: Continue reading Pamela Ronald does the right thing again, retracting a Science paper
Alirio Melendez, who has already had 12 papers retracted from various journals and been found guilty of scientific misconduct by a former employer, has had a Science paper retracted.
Here’s the notice (which is behind a paywall): Continue reading Melendez Science paper retracted, making 13
Last month, we broke the news that Emory chemist Craig Hill and colleagues were retracting two papers in the Journal of the American Chemical Society and one in Science. At the time, the Science move was pending, but now the journal has officially pulled the article, titled “A Late-Transition Metal Oxo Complex: K7Na9[O=PtIV(H2O)L2], L = [PW9O34]9–”.
The notice reads: Continue reading Closing loop, Science retracts Hill group oxo paper
The science world has been abuzz with news that a 2010 Science paper on an arsenic-based strain of bacteria had been refuted by two new studies published Sunday night. Yesterday on Retraction Watch, David Sanders argued the paper should still be retracted. So we were curious whether the editors of the journal had ever asked Felisa Wolfe-Simon and her colleagues to retract the paper. Science tells Retraction Watch: Continue reading Science has “not asked for a correction or retraction” of arsenic life paper, and why situation is unlike XMRV-CFS
Yesterday, Science published two papers which undercut an earlier paper in the journal claiming to show evidence for an arsenic-based strain of bacteria. Guest poster David Sanders, a structural biologist at Purdue University who was involved in a Retraction Watch story in May, argues that the journal could have avoided publishing the rebuttals—a swift retraction of the original was (and still is) the better move.
Allow me to apologize from the start. This narrative is not a typical Retraction Watch post, because it contains a number of personal elements. However, it would be hard to separate my perspective from my experience.
I will begin by asserting that, despite Rosie Redfield’s many valuable contributions to refuting the Wolfe-Simon paper that have culminated with the publication of data she and other investigators have obtained, there was no need for Science to publish additional articles. The Wolfe-Simon paper never should have been published. The only responsible action on the part of Science would be to retract the original article. Continue reading Despite refutation, Science arsenic life paper deserves retraction, scientist argues