Category: RW announcements

What should you do if a paper you’ve cited is later retracted?

RW logoWe all know that researchers continue to cite papers long after they’ve been retracted, posing concerns for the integrity of the literature. But what should you do if one of the papers you’ve cited gets retracted after you’ve already cited it?

We posed this question to some members of the board of directors of our parent non-profit organization, who offered up some valuable advice based on many years of experience working at journals and organizations such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The first step: Determine whether the fact a reference has been retracted has any impact on the conclusions of your own paper. From Elizabeth Wager, publications consultant, Sideview; former chair, COPE:

Continue reading What should you do if a paper you’ve cited is later retracted?

Posts you may have missed: Congress investigating lab, meet Hindawi’s head of research integrity

The email alerts for two of today’s posts didn’t didn’t go out, due to a programming glitch. So in case you missed them, here they are:

Like Retraction Watch? Consider making a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post, or subscribe to our daily digest. Click here to review our Comments Policy. For a sneak peek at what we’re working on, click here.

A significant cardiology retraction; second retraction from Case Western biologist; and more you may have missed

RW logoA number of readers contacted us last week to let us know that their email alerts had stopped arriving. We’ve now fixed that problem, which had to do with a software update. With apologies for the technical glitch, here’s a roundup (from a Friday post, which wasn’t delivered by email) of posts for which emails didn’t go out, in case you missed them: Continue reading A significant cardiology retraction; second retraction from Case Western biologist; and more you may have missed

Posts you may have missed: Student loses PhD, controversial data to be released

RW logoWe’ve got some late-breaking news to report — plus, it’s been a busy news week overall, and some of our email alerts didn’t go out, due to a programming glitch. Below, here are some recent stories you may have missed.

A tribunal at Queen Mary University of London has decided to disclose the data from the controversial PACE trial, which tested various therapies for chronic fatigue syndrome. For critics of this study, this has been a long-awaited decision.

What’s more,  Continue reading Posts you may have missed: Student loses PhD, controversial data to be released

Embezzlement, 15 retractions, and a whistleblower could add up to trouble for Duke

scienceRetraction Watch readers may recall the case of Erin Potts-Kant, who pled guilty to embezzling funds from a lab, and now has 15 retractions, and Michael Foster, both formerly of Duke. You may also remember that we’ve featured discussions of the False Claims Act, which some attorneys are trying to use to expose wrongdoing — and earn large settlements for whistleblowers in the process.

It turns out those two threads are intertwined, as we learned only last month when a federal court case against Potts-Kant, Foster, and Duke was unsealed last month. (False Claims Act cases are frequently sealed when initially filed, with big penalties for anyone — including the attorneys — who talk about them, which is why we didn’t know of this link before.) In today’s Science, as part of our new partnership, we tell the story in a lot more detail, and describe the potential ramifications for Duke and other universities.

The whistleblower in the Duke case is named Continue reading Embezzlement, 15 retractions, and a whistleblower could add up to trouble for Duke

Happy sixth anniversary, Retraction Watch! Here’s to a new partnership with Science

RW logoAugust 3rd has rolled around again, which means it’s time to celebrate another Retraction Watch anniversary — this time, our sixth.

It’s been an exciting year. Some highlights: Continue reading Happy sixth anniversary, Retraction Watch! Here’s to a new partnership with Science

Join our team: Retraction Watch needs a part-time editor

RW logoWe’re so inundated with story ideas and projects, we need some extra help! Specifically, we’re looking for a part-time editor who can be available during specific hours when we need an extra pair of hands.

During that time, you would review tips and write up breaking stories if they arise, as well as edit guest posts and other stories we couldn’t get to during the day. We’re specifically looking for someone who can be available for a fixed block of time, for a total of 12 hours per week.

The specific hours are Continue reading Join our team: Retraction Watch needs a part-time editor

Meet our newest team member: Dalmeet Singh Chawla

dalmeetJoin us in welcoming new staff writer Dalmeet Singh Chawla.

Dalmeet was inspired by talks at the 2014 Association of British Science Writers meeting (including by our own Ivan Oransky) to build a niche for himself as a writer – lucky for us, he chose science publishing. His focus has been on stories about innovations in scholarly publishing, but also covered peer review, authorship and publisher policies along the way.

As Dalmeet told us: Continue reading Meet our newest team member: Dalmeet Singh Chawla

Some posts you may have missed: Impressive amounts of plagiarism; PhD revocation; a poll, and more

RW logoDear Retraction Watch readers: Those of you signed up for our emails for every post may have wondered why we haven’t sent you any emails since Saturday. Well, it wasn’t because we didn’t want to. We had a technical glitch, which we’ve now fixed. Apologies for that, and here are links to the posts that appeared this week. We’re posting them in case you missed them. Thanks for reading! Continue reading Some posts you may have missed: Impressive amounts of plagiarism; PhD revocation; a poll, and more

Retractions rise to nearly 700 in fiscal year 2015 (and psst, this is our 3,000th post)

pubmedThis is our 3,000th post, dear reader, and to celebrate we’re presenting you with a wealth of retraction data from fiscal year 2015, courtesy of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

The biggest take-home: The number of retracted articles jumped from 500 in Fiscal Year 2014 to 684 in Fiscal Year 2015 — an increase of 37%. But in the same time period, the number of citations indexed for MEDLINE — about 806,000 — has only increased by 5%.

To illustrate, we’ve presented the increase in a handy graphic:

Continue reading Retractions rise to nearly 700 in fiscal year 2015 (and psst, this is our 3,000th post)