Cunning science fraudsters may not give many tells in their data, but the text of their papers may be a tipoff to bad behavior. That’s according to a new paper in the Journal of Language and Social Psychology by a pair of linguists at Stanford University who say that the writing style of data cheats … Continue reading Can linguistic patterns identify data cheats?
Following five years of scrutiny, more than ten retractions, multiple settled lawsuits, and medical board reprimands, we may finally have some resolution on the case of Anil Potti, the once-rising cancer research star who resigned from Duke in 2010. While there have been numerous allegations of misconduct in Potti’s work, and strong comments to that effect by … Continue reading It’s official: Anil Potti faked cancer research data, say Feds
A disability journal is “paying significant attention” to papers authored by Anna Stubblefield, a former Rutgers researcher recently convicted of sexually assaulting a disabled man who participated in her research. Stubblefield was convicted of sexually assaulting “DJ,” a man in his thirties with cerebral palsy who was “declared by the state to have the mental capacity of a … Continue reading Journal reviewing papers by researcher who sexually assaulted disabled author
Today, The BMJ retracted a 1989 paper about the role of breastfeeding and formula in infant eczema — 20 years after the data were called into question by a university report. However, the report was kept secret — due, by some accounts, to alleged threats of a lawsuit. That is, until this year, when author Ranjit Kumar … Continue reading After court verdict, BMJ retracts 26-year-old paper
DNA and Cell Biology has declared it will ban any authors who submit plagiarized manuscripts for three years, and will no longer accept suggestions of reviewers with non-institutional email addresses. The move comes after a wave of hundreds of retractions stemming from fake peer reviews, often occurring when authors supply fake emails for suggested reviewers. In an … Continue reading Biology journal bans plagiarizers, reviewers with non-institutional email addresses
A federal report has found that a former University of Maryland postdoc “falsified and/or fabricated” data in two papers about taste receptors. The Office of Research Integrity report found that Maria C.P. Geraedts manipulated bar graphs in the papers to “produce the desired result.” Both have been retracted. Geraedts left academia in 2014, and is now a science writer. We reported on … Continue reading Taste researcher falsified data in two papers: ORI
Lots of good reads elsewhere this week. As promised yesterday, here’s part 2:
The week at Retraction Watch featured a lot of movement on our leaderboard, with a new total for Diederik Stapel, and a new entry. It also featured a lot going on elsewhere, so here’s part I of Weekend Reads (we’ll have more tomorrow morning):
We’ve learned about two more retractions we missed for Diederick Stapel, the Dutch social psychology researcher who has now racked up a total of 57 retractions by our count. Both retractions were issued after a committee released a report which established fraud in dozens of papers co-authored by Stapel. Stapel is still #4 on our leaderboard.
We are pleased to present a guest post by Paolo Macchiarini, a surgeon best known for pioneering the creation of tracheas from cadavers and patients’ own stem cells. Macchiarini has faced some harsh criticisms over the years, including accusations of downplaying the risks of the procedure and not obtaining proper consent. We have covered the investigation, including … Continue reading Where I think Retraction Watch went wrong: A guest post from Paolo Macchiarini