Category: studies about retractions

Coming soon to a city nowhere near you: The Conference of Universal Rejection

JofURBannerAbout three years ago, we brought Retraction Watch readers news of our new favorite journal, the Journal of Universal Rejection. In a post titled “No retractions necessary” that featured an interview with the editor, Caleb Emmons, we quoted the journal:

The founding principle of the Journal of Universal Rejection (JofUR) is rejection. Universal rejection. That is to say, all submissions, regardless of quality, will be rejected.

So we’re thrilled to learn that the JofUR has now moved into the lucrative conference market, with their Conference of Universal Rejection scheduled for August of this year: Continue reading Coming soon to a city nowhere near you: The Conference of Universal Rejection

Weekend reads: Seralini GMO-rat study retraction aftershocks; NEJM investigates conflicts of interest

booksAnother busy week at Retraction Watch. Here’s a sampling of items about scientific publishing, research misconduct, and related issues from around the web:
Continue reading Weekend reads: Seralini GMO-rat study retraction aftershocks; NEJM investigates conflicts of interest

Weekend reads: One researcher resents “cyberbullying” while another wishes peer reviewers would spank him

booksAnother busy week at Retraction Watch. Here’s what was going on around the web in scientific publishing and related issues:

A rating system for retractions? How various journals stack up

publications-logoHere at Retraction Watch, we judge retraction notices every day. We even have a category called “unhelpful retraction notices.”

But we haven’t systematically analyzed those notices, so lucky for us, a group of academics at Vanderbilt decided to. In a new paper published in a special issue of Publications — an issue whose editor, Grant Steen, put out a call for papers for here on Retraction Watch — Emma Bilbrey, Natalie O’Dell, and Jonathan Creamer explain: Continue reading A rating system for retractions? How various journals stack up

Weekend reads: Trying unsuccessfully to correct the scientific record; drug company funding and research

booksThere were lots of pieces about scientific misconduct, publishing, and related issues posted around the web this week, so without further ado: Continue reading Weekend reads: Trying unsuccessfully to correct the scientific record; drug company funding and research

Weekend reads: Waste in research, a praise-worthy swift correction in NEJM, and more

booksThe first full week of 2014 featured a slew of stories and commentary about scientific publishing and related issues. Here’s a sampling: Continue reading Weekend reads: Waste in research, a praise-worthy swift correction in NEJM, and more

Weekend reads: Most scientific fraudsters keep their jobs, random acts of academic kindness, and more

booksA bumper crop of material about misconduct, peer review, and related issues came to our attention this week, so without further ado: Continue reading Weekend reads: Most scientific fraudsters keep their jobs, random acts of academic kindness, and more

The top 10 retractions of 2013

RW twins
One unplanned 2013 highlight: We showed up to a meeting wearing the same shirt

No question, 2013 has been a busy year at Retraction Watch. And no wonder: There have been more than 500 retractions in the scientific literature, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge. We’ve posted roughly that many times, and had more than five million pageviews (thank you!).

So, to send 2013 off with a bang, Continue reading The top 10 retractions of 2013

Weekend reads: Snarky acknowledgement sections, journal editors on fraud

booksAnother busy week at Retraction Watch, beginning with a story we broke about faked HIV vaccine results that was picked up by the Des Moines Register and other outlets. Here’s what was happening elsewhere on the web: Continue reading Weekend reads: Snarky acknowledgement sections, journal editors on fraud

Does science need a retraction “shame list?”

accountabilityA pair of engineering researchers has analyzed the work of a handful of prolific scientific fraudsters, and has concluded that science needs a “shame list” to deter future misconduct.

The paper, “Analysis and Implications of Retraction Period and Coauthorship of Fraudulent Publications,” by Jong Yong Abdiel Foo and Xin Ji Alan Tan, of  Ngee Ann Polytechnic in Singapore, appeared online last week in Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance.

The authors write that Continue reading Does science need a retraction “shame list?”