law – Retraction Watch

New rule in Peru restricts authors with retractions from getting special bonuses

Peru’s Ministry of Education headquarters in Lima.
*ANDINA/Editora Perú*

In an ongoing effort to combat scientific misconduct, Peru has passed new rules that bar research faculty at public universities there from receiving special bonuses if they’ve had one or more retractions in the last three years.

The conditions, published March 2, apply to faculty members at public universities who are eligible for special bonuses funded by the Ministry of Education. Peruvian researchers who participate in one or more research projects qualify for the monthly bonuses, which range from 2,616.50 to 4,434.91 Peruvian soles, or US$699.60 to $1,185.80, according to a summary in the new rules.

The restrictions come after a 2024 investigative commission in Peru identified significant scientific fraud by criminal networks involved in buying and selling academic research. Transactions by three presumed criminal networks amounted to 11.42 million soles, or roughly $3 million, between 2019 and 2023, according to the commission’s report.

Editor won’t investigate data concerns about paper linking anti-prostitution laws to increased rape

After reading an economics paper that claimed to document an increase in the rate of rape in European countries following the passage of prostitution bans, a data scientist had questions.

The scientist, who wishes to remain anonymous, sent a detailed email to an editor of the Journal of Law and Economics, which had published the paper last November, outlining concerns about the data and methods the authors used.

Among them: the historical rates of rape recorded in the paper did not match the values in the official sources the authors said they used. In other cases, data that were available from the official sources were missing in the paper, the researchers didn’t incorporate all the data they had collected into their model, and a variable was coded inconsistently, the data scientist wrote. (We’ve made the full critique available here.)

Given the consequences the conclusions of the article could have for people in the sex industry, the data scientist wrote, “I hope that someone takes this very seriously and looks into it the [sic] validity of the analysis and the data they used.”

Legal scholar who claimed false affiliations moves on to creating dubious legal yearbooks

In April 2022, Ioannis Kalpouzos, a professor at Harvard Law, received an invitation to join the editorial board of the newly-launched American Yearbook of International Law. But something gave him pause.

“The title sounded a bit dodgy – it sounded like something I should have heard of,” Kalpouzos told Retraction Watch, adding that with some Googling he “found that it wasn’t really a thing.”

“If somebody’s not in the know, it’s easier for them to be duped, I suppose,” Kalpouzos said, but his instincts told him that such a yearbook would most likely be published by an established law review.

So he declined.

Legal researcher who claimed false affiliation up to 31 retractions

A law researcher who has falsely claimed to have been affiliated with several institutions has lost eight more publications, bringing his retraction total to 31 and earning him a spot in the top 20 of our leaderboard.

The most recent retractions for Dimitris Liakopoulos include The Regulation of Transnational Mergers in International and European Law, an entire book he co-authored. They also include three papers from Homa Publica and two from Lex et Scientia International Journal. An example:

Legal researcher up to 23 retractions for false affiliations, plagiarism

A legal scholar with a peripatetic and checkered career — and questionable CV — now has 23 retractions by our count.

Dimitris Liakopoulos, about whom we first wrote in July, has claimed to have held professorships in Europe and the United States, including at Columbia Law School, Stetson University and Tufts University, as well as authorship on some 600 papers. But journals have been retracting his articles over concerns about plagiarism and concerns about his stated academic affiliations. For example, Tufts told us in July that he had never been affiliated with the school.

Liakopoulos appears to have locked his ORCID ID, making public scrutiny of his scholarly output more difficult. But commenters on PubPeer have taken aim at several of his papers over the past few months.

Itinerant legal scholar who claimed Tufts affiliation up to 10 retractions

A legal scholar who claims to have held professorships in Italy and the United States and to have written more than 600 papers has had 10 of those articles retracted, some for plagiarism and the most recent also because of a faked affiliation.

Dimitris Liakopoulos, according to his self-written ORCID profile, has

Cribbing from Kribbe: UK criminology prof loses four papers for plagiarism

A professor of criminology at Middlesex University London has had four papers retracted because at least three of them cribbed significantly from a PhD thesis written by someone named Kribbe.

Three of the four retractions for the professor, Anthony Amatrudo, appear in International Journal of Law in Context. One of the notices reads: Continue reading Cribbing from Kribbe: UK criminology prof loses four papers for plagiarism

Supreme Court nominee Gorsuch lifted from earlier works in his scholarly papers: Report

U.S. Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch appears to have borrowed material from multiple authors in his 2006 book, according to a new analysis by Politico.

This week, U.S. lawmakers are going head-to-head over the nomination of Gorsuch to the highest court in the land. Although the book is only one snippet of Gorsuch’s vast portfolio of writings, six independent experts contacted by Politico agreed that the flagged passages appear problematic.

Here’s more about documents obtained by the media outlet:

Continue reading Supreme Court nominee Gorsuch lifted from earlier works in his scholarly papers: Report

Is China using organs from executed prisoners? Researchers debate issue in the literature

A researcher is calling for the retraction of a paper about a recent ban in the use of organs from executed prisoners in China, accusing the authors of misrepresenting the state of the practice.

In April 2015, a paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics welcomed the ban by the Chinese government as “a step in the right direction,” but noted that China remains plagued by a crucial shortage in available organs.

Some academics disagreed with the authors’ take on the issue, noting that the paper fails to note that many organs may continue to be harvested from Chinese prisoners of conscience; ultimately, the journal received a letter asking to retract the paper. The journal decided not to, and instead asked the authors to issue a lengthy correction, for instance changing the language about the government decision (“law” became“guideline”), and allowed critics to publish a rebuttal to the paper in May 2016. Continue reading Is China using organs from executed prisoners? Researchers debate issue in the literature

Lawsuit against publisher over retraction comes a step closer to reality

An author has begun the process of taking legal action against a publisher for retracting his paper.

As we reported last month, John Bishop, the CEO of an independent media company called Crocels, based in Pontypridd, Wales, argues that by taking down his paper, De Gruyter defamed him and breached a contract — their agreement to publish his paper. Now, Bishop has sent the publisher what’s known in the UK as a “letter of claim.”

In the letter, Bishop writes:

Continue reading Lawsuit against publisher over retraction comes a step closer to reality

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: