Category: Uncategorized

In September 2014, an investigation into the work of an award-winning cancer researcher in Illinois concluded that multiple papers had been affected by misconduct. Now, nearly four years later, two of those articles have been retracted.

What happened in the intervening years reveals a complicated and at times bizarre story involving not only scientific misconduct, but accusations of mistreatment of lab members, gambling debts, and a failed lawsuit.

In 2014, the researcher, Jasti Rao, filed a lawsuit against his former employer, the University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria, which conducted the misconduct investigation, along with his two former supervisors, accusing them of discrimination and violation of due process.

The investigation focused on both research misconduct and alleged ethics infractions, including taking cash from employees. Court documents reveal that Rao admitted to gambling during work hours, and after he was late in paying debts — including one worth $75,000 — his credit was suspended by the Par-A-Dice Casino in Peoria.

Continue reading He was once a prominent cancer researcher. Then his gambling — and a finding of scientific misconduct — got in the way.

Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, we could really use your help. Would you consider a tax-deductible donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance.

The week at Retraction Watch featured allegations of text reuse by a Harvard professor, news about a new predatory publishing scam, and the refusal of a journal to retract a paper by Paolo Macchiarini. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Scientists citing themselves; gender and clinical trials; jail after plagiarism

You’ve worked hard on your research, spent time writing it up, and finally, the good news comes: The journal you submitted to has accepted your paper. Trouble is, for multiple authors, that good news turns bad — the acceptance was fake. Recently, in Scholarly Kitchen, Angela Cochran,  Associate Publisher, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), revealed a disturbing new trend in predatory publishing: Intermediaries who promise to help researchers get their findings published, but instead pocket the fees. We spoke with Cochran about her experience with this new type of forgery, and how she thinks publishers (and authors) can fight back.

Retraction Watch: It seems like a fairly elaborate ruse to get someone to believe a journal has accepted their paper when it hasn’t. How do you suspect the process works?  

Continue reading Congrats! Your paper was accepted. (Except if the acceptance letter was forged.)

Not everyone is happy with journals these days — researchers in artificial intelligence have announced they were boycotting a new Nature journal for being subscription-only, and universities are cancelling subscriptions over fees. The founders of PubPeer — a site dedicated to commentary about already published papers — are trying a different approach. Today, the PubPeer Foundation launched a new site called Peeriodicals, on which users can curate published manuscripts they believe are important to the field, creating an online “journal.” Many users go on PubPeer to criticize articles — we spoke with founders Brandon Stell and Boris Barbour about whether they hope the new product will inspire users to leave more positive comments on the site.

Retraction Watch: How does the new site work? How can readers participate?

Continue reading See a paper you like? PubPeer wants to help you create a “journal” around it

Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, we could really use your help. Would you consider a tax-deductible donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance.

The week at Retraction Watch featured the University of Alabama’s request for 20 retractions of papers by one of its former researchers; a sturgeon researcher who’s up to 13 retractions for fake peer review; and what happens when researchers from several high-profile institutions can’t reproduce findings. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Science is “show me,” not “trust me;” pressure to publish survey data; what peer review misses

Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, we could really use your help. Would you consider a tax-deductible donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance.

The week at Retraction Watch featured a debate over a flawed climate change paper, seven new retractions for a researcher under fire, and two chemists duking it out over credit for a 30-year-old technique. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Jailed for speaking the truth; sexual harassment allegations at the Salk; children at risk in trials

Last October, David Hawkes read a letter to the editor that shocked him: It alleged Hawkes and a colleague had lied about their professional affiliations.

Hawkes told Retraction Watch that he contacted the journal Toxicology on October 19 to complain that the letter contained “numerous factual errors that could adversely affect our professional standing,” and requested the journal retract it as soon as possible. Hawkes told the editors of Toxicology:

…the claims about both myself and Joanne Benhamu are factually incorrect and we have received professional advice that they could be considered slanderous.

The journal retracted the letter yesterday, four months after Hawkes’ request. Continue reading Retracted letter about vaccine safety made potentially “slanderous” claims