The week at Retraction Watch featured a shooting by a researcher fired for misconduct, and the creation of fake computer-generated peer reviews. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
As the University of California Davis is reeling from the resignation of Chancellor Linda Katehi over alleged ethical violations, we’ve learned of more drama at the school: The fallout from a single retraction back in 2012 pushed one UC Davis professor into early retirement this summer without professor emeritus status. What’s more, a UC Davis … Continue reading Professor forced to retire after threatening co-author
Are there instances when similarities between papers should be fixed by a correction, rather than a retraction? We’re asking ourselves that question after seeing two journals take very different approaches to a somewhat similar situation. Last year, Frontiers in Physiology retracted a paper by Anastasios Lymperopoulos at Nova Southeastern University in Florida because of an “an … Continue reading Author lifts from one paper in two different articles. Why does one journal retract, while the other corrects?
Sometimes, the best way to expose a problem with the publishing process is to put it to a test — perhaps by performing a Sokal-style hoax, or submitting a paper with obvious flaws. In 2014, that’s just what a researcher in Kosovo did. Suspicious that a journal wasn’t doing a thorough job of vetting submissions, she decided to … Continue reading Sting operation forces predatory publisher to pull paper
What makes a person fabricate data? Pressure from different corners in his or her life, to get published, funding, or promotions? Are there personality traits that occur more often among those caught committing misconduct? We spoke with Cristy McGoff, the Director of the research integrity office at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro – … Continue reading Why do scientists commit misconduct?
The week at Retraction Watch featured health care fraud charges for a researcher who committed scientific fraud, and a first-ever government agency lawsuit against a scientific publisher for deceit. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
A cluster of papers by different authors has been retracted for sharing text, even though some papers were submitted at the same time. How is that possible? A spokesperson for Springer told us that they have reason to believe a third-party company may have helped prepare the papers for publication, and in the process might have spread … Continue reading A retraction cluster? Two papers retracted for overlap with other retractions
The week at Retraction Watch featured a new member of our leaderboard and a discussion of what would happen if peer reviewers didn’t look at results. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
A biology journal has blacklisted authors from publishing their work after finding their case report about a dementia patient with hypersexuality was plagiarized from a previously published report. The retraction notice, issued by Advances in Human Biology (AIHB) in June, recognizes the case as “scientific misconduct.” The journal launched an investigation after the plagiarism was … Continue reading Journal blacklists authors for plagiarizing case report about hypersexuality in dementia
We’ve been writing about retractions for six years, and things tend to fall into easily recognizable categories — plagiarism, fabricated data, rigged peer review, etc. So it’s always interesting to come across a notice sui generis, such as one that appeared in July in OncoTargets and Therapy, a Dove title, about a new way to detect … Continue reading Beg pardon? Researchers pull cancer paper because, well, um, you see …