A bioscience company is offering researchers a voucher — $100 and up — to mention them in published papers.
“PCR just got a new meaning,” Cyagen Biosciences, Inc. declares on their website: “Publish”, “Cite,” “Reward.”
The company, which makes bioscience tools, is offering scientists vouchers in exchange for a nod: Continue reading Researchers, need $100? Just mention Cyagen in your paper!
Researchers at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences have retracted a 2014 article after a review unearthed unresolved problems with the study’s control material.
The retracted paper, “Effect of Temperature and Storage Time on Sorbitol Dehydrogenase Activity in Sprague-Dawley Rat Serum and Plasma,” looked to test the durability and stability of sorbitol dehydrogenase, an enzyme used to detect cancerous liver damage in rats.
Here’s the complete retraction notice from Toxicologic Pathology :
Continue reading “Values were outside expected ranges”: Toxicology paper spiked after audit
The careers site of Science magazine has pulled an advice column posted today from virologist Alice Huang, who suggested a postdoc tolerate an advisor’s roving eye.
In the retraction note, Science Careers apologizes for publishing the post, even if it was for just a few hours. “We regret that the article had not undergone proper editorial review prior to posting.”
Luckily, we found a web archive, courtesy of Kelly Hills (@rocza).
Here’s the question, from a reader whom we presume to be female:
Rolling Stone has officially retracted its blockbuster story on a gruesome gang rape at the University of Virginia, “A Rape on Campus.”
The story, which followed the case of a UVA student named Jackie, was retracted last night after a 12,700-word report was released by the Columbia Journalism School and published on Rolling Stone’s website. The CJR review uncovered a breakdown in very basic reporting principles, including pressing hard for outside confirmation of difficult stories and sending “no surprises” letters to every person being portrayed in an unflattering light. The report was accompanied by an apology from managing editor Will Dana, who penned the editor’s note we discussed in December. The writer, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, also released a statement, which read in part: Continue reading Rolling Stone retracts UVA gang rape story: A view from Retraction Watch
Rolling Stone has published an editor’s note that calls into question their November 19 story, “A Rape on Campus,” which details a UVA student’s alleged gang rape at a fraternity party and her subsequent struggle to get justice from the school.
Shortly after publication, the magazine was criticized for not seeking a statement from the alleged perpetrators, despite the fact that they were not named in the story, and for relying almost entirely on the testimony from one individual.
Here is managing editor Will Dana’s editor’s note: Continue reading Is Rolling Stone retracting its story on UVA sexual assault?
Here’s something lovely to cheer you up.
Yesterday’s Courier-Mail in Queensland, Australia, published a heart-warming note in the birth announcements – a retraction for a 1995 birth announcement of a baby girl.
Click through for the full text.
Continue reading “Loving you is the easiest thing in the world”: A retraction of a different sort
The authors of a paper on anesthetic waste gases in the operating room have pulled the article for plagiarism.
The paper, titled “Further Pieces of Evidence to the Pulmonary Origin of Sevoflurane Escaping to the Operating Room During General Anaesthesia,” appeared in Cell Biochemistry and Biophysics and came from a group at various institutions in Harbin, China.
But according to the retraction notice, the further pieces weren’t really further, after all:
Continue reading Wasted breath: Cribbing earns retraction of anesthesia paper
Yesterday we reported that Cell was looking into problematic images in a recent paper on human embryonic stem cell cloning. We’ve now heard from the journal about the nature of the inquiry.
Mary Beth O’Leary, a spokeswoman for Cell Press — an Elsevier title — tells us that:
Based on our own initial in-house assessment of the issues raised in PubPeer and in initial discussions with the authors, it seems that there were some minor errors made by the authors when preparing the figures for initial submission. While we are continuing discussions with the authors, we do not believe these errors impact the scientific findings of the paper in any way.
Continue reading Cell attributes image problems in cloning paper to “minor” errors; sees no impact on conclusions
The New York Times Magazine has a great profile — featuring an in-depth interview — of Diederik Stapel this weekend. Check it out. (Or, if you’re visiting us because the magazine was kind enough to include a link to Retraction Watch, welcome! And find all of our Stapel coverage here.)
One of a number of highlights in the piece by Yudhijit Battacharjee: Continue reading An illuminating profile of Diederik Stapel in the New York Times Magazine
Brian Deer’s name will no doubt be familiar to many Retraction Watch readers. Deer, of course, is the award-winning investigative reporter known for his reporting on numerous medical issues, including Andrew Wakefield’s now-retracted research into autism and vaccines.
Deer is giving a talk next week at the UK’s “Evidence Live” conference,and has a proposal that he hopes will make it more difficult for dishonest researchers to hide their misdeeds — and make it easier for journals to retract fraudulent papers. He has expressed concern before that voluntary codes have no teeth. Deer is proposing an amendment to the ICMJE’s Uniform Requirements for the Submission of Manuscripts to Biomedical Journals:
Continue reading Brian Deer’s modest proposal for post-publication peer review