Category: RW announcements

Retraction Watch “mischaracterized the reason for a retraction:” Harlan Krumholz responds to a post

Harlan Krumholz
Harlan Krumholz

On Friday, we reported on the retraction and republication of a paper in The Lancet. One of the paper’s authors, Yale’s Harlan Krumholz, took issue with how we characterized the reason for the retraction. We offered him a chance to write a guest post about the situation, which we are pleased to publish below. Please see our editor’s note at the end.

Retraction Watch has grown to play a very important role in promoting responsible conduct of scientific research. Its quest to ‘track retractions as a window into the scientific process’ performs a great service to society. They also have a great responsibility to be accurate in their characterizations of retractions, as all are not alike. I was disappointed that they, in my opinion, mischaracterized the reason for a retraction and republication of one of my papers and did not want to retract their own story (do they have a process to evaluate such concerns?).  They said that the retraction occurred because of a major statistical error, when, in my opinion, it was the result of a minor statistical error that affected the results in a very minor way and had no effect on the conclusion.  That seems like a more accurate characterization to me. And it makes a difference to the impression of what happened.

Here is the story: Continue reading Retraction Watch “mischaracterized the reason for a retraction:” Harlan Krumholz responds to a post

What if universities had to agree to refund grants whenever there was a retraction?

Leonid Schneider self-portrait
Leonid Schneider self-portrait

We’re pleased to share this guest post from Leonid Schneider, a cell biologist, science journalist and a prolific cartoonist whose work graces our Twitter profile and Facebook page. In it, Schneider argues for a new way to ensure accountability for publicly funded research.

It has become clear that scientific dishonesty is rarely sanctioned.  In the worst case scenario, manipulated or fraudulent papers have to be retracted, yet scientists of a certain academic standing can weather retractions without much adverse effect on their careers or institutional budgets. Retraction Watch lists plenty of cases in which the full blame for retracted papers has been accepted by the first author, with the senior principal investigator (PI) continuing as nothing has happened. Cases of justice, like that of the HIV-vaccine fraudster Dong-Pyou Han, who has apparently accepted a plea bargain after losing his job at Iowa State University, which in turn had to forfeit part of a $14.5 million NIH grant to the lab in which he worked, are very rare.

The problem is that Continue reading What if universities had to agree to refund grants whenever there was a retraction?

Retraction Watch: A year in review, an accounting, and thanks

logo2014 was quite a year for Retraction Watch. We reported on hundreds of retractions — here are our top 10 — but we also took some big steps in our development. Some highlights: Continue reading Retraction Watch: A year in review, an accounting, and thanks

Former postdoc threatens Retraction Watch with lawsuit over vague defamation claims

Varun Kesherwani
Varun Kesherwani

In April 2012, we wrote about a case of disputed authorship and misused data involving one Varun Kesherwani, a former postdoc at the University of Nebraska.

As we reported then, Kesherwani was first author of a paper in Cytokine. The second author, Ajit Sodhi, of Banaras Hindu University, claimed to have had no knowledge of the article and had not given Kesherwani permission to use the results. Thus, the retraction.

Since then, we have received numerous messages from Kesherwani objecting to our post — he claims it has hurt his employment prospects — and demanding that we take it down. At one point he even suggested in an email that we pay him to go away: Continue reading Former postdoc threatens Retraction Watch with lawsuit over vague defamation claims

Retraction Watch is growing, thanks to a $400,000 grant from the MacArthur Foundation

macarthurDear Retraction Watch readers, we have some exciting news to share.

After more than four years, 2,000 posts, and incredible responses from the scientific community, we are thrilled to announce that The Center For Scientific Integrity, a not-for-profit corporation we’ve established, has been awarded a $400,000 grant from the MacArthur Foundation to expand the work of Retraction Watch.

The goal of the grant — $200,000 per year for two years — is to create a comprehensive and freely available database of retractions, something that doesn’t now exist, as we and others have noted. That, we wrote in our proposal, is

a gap that deprives scholarly publishing of a critical mechanism for self-correction.

While we’re able to cover somewhere around two-thirds of new retractions as they appear, we’ll need more resources to be comprehensive. Here’s more from our proposal: Continue reading Retraction Watch is growing, thanks to a $400,000 grant from the MacArthur Foundation

The Peer Review Scam: How authors are reviewing their own papers

nature nov coverYesterday, we reported on the discovery by BioMed Central that there were about 50 papers in their editorial system whose authors had recommended fake peer reviewers. Those “reviewers” had submitted reviews of a number of manuscripts, and five of the papers had been published. (BMC posted a blog examining the case this morning.)

For some Retraction Watch readers, the elements of the story may have seemed familiar. Fake reviews — often involving self-peer review — have been the basis for a growing number of retractions.

As it happens, we’ve been working for a few months on a feature for the news section of Nature on the larger phenomenon. In the piece, out today and titled “The Peer Review Scam,” we write: Continue reading The Peer Review Scam: How authors are reviewing their own papers

Are lawyers ruining science?

labtimes 6-14Regular Retraction Watch readers may have noticed that legal issues seem to be popping up more often in the cases we cover. There has been a lawsuit filed against PubPeer commenters, for example, and Nature last month blamed lawyers for delayed and opaque retraction notices.

It was those cases and others that prompted us to write our most recent column for Lab Times with a title mirrored in the headline of this post. As we note in our column, there are a lot of great lawyers out there, some of whom — for example, those at WordPress — have helped us

fight the good fight. We also believe strongly in the ability of prosecutors to punish – and, ideally, deter – scientific misconduct, particularly in cases involving fraud using taxpayer dollars.

Still, as we write: Continue reading Are lawyers ruining science?

“Editors are pleased to receive death threats on the third Thursday of the month:” A new journal launches

inferenceThere’s a new journal in town.

Inference’s first issue includes a lengthy review of a laboratory by a tennis instructor, a set of caricatures, and an exchange of emails from 1996 that is “perhaps, less remarkable for what it says than for the fact that it took place at all.”

In short, its editors — who “would prefer to remain anonymous” — seem to share a sense of humor with the editors of the Journal of Universal Rejection or the Proceedings of the Natural Institute of Science: Continue reading “Editors are pleased to receive death threats on the third Thursday of the month:” A new journal launches

Is it time for a retraction penalty?

labtimesThe title of this post is the headline of our most recent column in LabTimes, which begins:

As we write this in mid-August, Nature has already retracted seven papers in 2014. That’s not yet a record – for that, you’d have to go back to 2003’s ten retractions, in the midst of the Jan Hendrik Schön fiasco – but if you add up all of the citations to those seven papers, the figure is in excess of 500.

That’s an average of more than 70 citations per paper. What effect would removing those citations from calculations of Nature’s impact factor – currently 42 – have?

Science would lose 197 citations based on this year’s two retractions. And Cell would lose 315 citations to two now-retracted papers.

In other words, what if journals were penalised for retractions, putting their money where their mouth is when they talk about how good their peer review is? Clearly, if a paper is retracted, no matter what excuses journals make, peer review didn’t work as well as it could have.

We explore what this might mean for top journals. But there are some nuances here. We wouldn’t want to further discourage retractions of papers that deserved it. One solution: Continue reading Is it time for a retraction penalty?