Ulrich Lichtenthaler, the management professor who has had 13 papers retracted, has a correction in the Journal of Product Innovation Management.
Here’s the text of the correction for “The Role of Champions in the External Commercialization of Knowledge, ” which is followed by the corrected tables: Continue reading Erratum appears for Ulrich Lichtenthaler, who has 13 retractions
We — and others — have been scratching our heads about the real reasons for the formal retraction on March 21 of a Frontiers in Psychology paper since the journal issued a statement on the subject on Friday that seemed to contradict the retraction notice and that certainly differed from accounts on some blogs. Today, we learned a few more details about what happened in the year between when the paper was provisionally removed and then formally retracted from a post by Stephan Lewandowsky, one of the co-authors of the paper.
The March 21 statement, writes Lewandowsky, Continue reading Co-author of retracted conspiracy ideation-climate skepticism paper addresses apparent contradictions
Another busy week at Retraction Watch. Here’s what was happening elsewhere on the web in scientific publishing and related issues: Continue reading Weekend reads: Former ORI director speaks out; Is peer review broken?
Frontiers in Psychology, which last month formally retracted a controversial paper linking climate skepticism to conspiracy ideation, says it did not cave in to threats from skeptics, contrary to what a lot of news reports and commentary implied or claimed.
For example, summarizing a number of those reports this morning, before Frontiers had issued its statement, co-author Stephan Lewandowsky wrote on his blog:
By and large, the mainstream media coverage seems to have picked up on what’s really at issue here, namely academic freedom and editorial intimidation by a small band of vociferous individuals.
Here’s the statement, in which Frontiers stresses the rights of the people Lewandowsky and his colleagues wrote about:
The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging has retracted a 2013 paper by a group of researchers from Italy. The reason: plagiarism.
The paper was titled “Diagnostic accuracy of 320-row computed tomography as compared with invasive coronary angiography in unselected, consecutive patients with suspected coronary artery disease,” and it came from scientists in Rome led by Francesco Pelliccia of the Department of Heart and Great Vessels at Sapienza University.
Continue reading Do you see what I see? Heart imaging journal yanks cardiac study for plagiarism
As Retraction Watch readers will likely recall, Paul Brookes ran Science-Fraud.org anonymously until early 2013, when he was outed and faced legal threats that forced him to shut down the site. There are a lot of lessons to be drawn from the experience, some of which Brookes discussed with Science last month.
Today, PeerJ published Brookes’ analysis of the response to critiques on Science-Fraud.org. It’s a compelling examination that suggests public scrutiny of the kind found on the site — often harsh, but always based solidly on evidence — is linked to more corrections and retractions in the literature.
Brookes looked at
497 papers for which data integrity had been questioned either in public or in private. As such, the papers were divided into two sub-sets: a public set of 274 papers discussed online, and the remainder a private set of 223 papers not publicized.
His results?
Continue reading Does publicly questioning papers lead to more corrections and retractions?
Follow this timeline, if you would:
That would appear to be what the timeline on the paper — which lists Das as corresponding author, along with a Gmail address — says:
A complicated story involving Novartis’s valsartan (Diovan) has led to the retraction of two more papers, one cascading from the other.
Last September, The Lancet retracted the Jikei Heart Study after a slew of retractions of related work prompted an investigation of valsartan research. That investigation found evidence of data manipulation and the failure of one researcher to note his Novartis affiliation. The company has apologized.
Here’s one retraction, from Diabetes Care, for “The Shiga Microalbuminuria Reduction Trial (SMART) Group. Reduction of Microalbuminuria in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: The Shiga Microalbuminuria Reduction Trial (SMART):”
Continue reading Novartis Diovan scandal claims two more papers
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
Here’s a physics question: How is it possible to be in two places at the same time?
Answer: Submit the same manuscript twice and hope the editors forget to feed Schrödinger’s cat.
The journal Condensed Matter Physics is retracting a 2013 paper by a Ukrainian scientist who’d published essentially the same paper seven years earlier.The article was titled “On the origin of power-law distributions in systems with constrained phase space,” and was written by an E.V. Vakarin, of the Institute for Condensed Matter Physics, in Lviv UMR 7575 LECA ENSCP-UPMC-CNRS.
According to the abstract: Continue reading Duplication in physics journal questions key tenet of quantum mechanics