A journal is investigating research by a group in Australia, after receiving “serious allegations” regarding a 2017 paper about treating eye burns. The journal, Frontiers in Pharmacology, has issued an expression of concern (EOC) for the 2017 paper while it investigates. The notice does not specify the nature of the allegations. Meanwhile, several other papers … Continue reading Work by group at Australian university faces scrutiny
The week at Retraction Watch featured a study suggesting that 2% of studies in eight medical journals contained suspect data, and the announcement of a retraction on a professor’s blog. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
The week at Retraction Watch featured the launch of an award for doing the right thing, and a hijacked journal getting its name back. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
The week at Retraction Watch featured a new record for most retractions by a single journal, and an impassioned plea from a biostatistician for journals to clean up their act. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
A journal has pulled a paper about predicting people’s faces from their fingerprints due to “significant overlap” with a previous paper by the same authors. According to the retraction notice in Intelligent Automation & Soft Computing, the authors didn’t cite or acknowledge the other study in the Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering & Computer … Continue reading Author objects to retraction of paper suggesting fingerprints can predict facial features
Consider this: Fragments of a PLOS ONE paper overlap with pieces of other publications. The authors used them without credit and without quotation marks. This sounds an awful lot like plagiarism — using PLOS‘s own standards, even. But the journal isn’t calling it plagiarism. They’ve labeled this an instance of “text overlap,” a spokesperson told us, based … Continue reading When does “overlap” become plagiarism? Here’s what PLOS ONE decided
The week at Retraction Watch featured an inscrutable retraction notice, and a raft of new retractions for a cancer researcher who once threatened to sue us. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Plagiarism and duplication can be deadly to a paper in any dose. In the case of a study on the toxicity of nanoparticles to plants, the publisher has presented the precise amount of plagiarism and duplications that ultimately felled the paper. Specifically, according to Nanomaterials, 56% of “Potential Impact of Multi-Walled Carbon Nanotubes Exposure to the … Continue reading More than half of plant toxicity paper isn’t original, journal says
The week at Retraction Watch featured a PhD student expelled for submitting a paper without her co-authors’ permission, and a look at the six types of peer reviewers. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
A material science journal has retracted a paper after discovering that the first author faked email addresses for co-authors to submit the paper without their permission. The journal, Materials, also discovered that the 2016 paper had plagiarized material from a 2013 paper previously published in Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A. Here’s the retraction notice for the paper: