In a massive cleanup, Springer and BioMed Central announced today they are retracting 58 papers for several reasons, including manipulation of the peer-review process and inappropriately allocating authorship. The papers appeared in seven journals, and more are under investigation. In a release issued today, the publishers note:
The week at Retraction Watch featured an exclusive about a prominent heart researcher being dismissed, and a look at signs that a paper’s authorship was bought. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Top-ranking economists sometimes publish papers in open access journals deemed potentially “predatory,” according to a new analysis. The findings contradict previous results that show that researchers who publish papers in “potential, possible, or probable” predatory journals (as defined by librarian Jeffrey Beall) are largely inexperienced. According to the study, 27 of the most eminent economists (within the top … Continue reading Even top economists publish in predatory journals, study finds
An author who claimed that he accidentally plagiarized material in a retracted paper has lost two more — again, for plagiarism. Earlier this year, we shared a 900-word statement in which Christopher S. Collins at Azusa Pacific University explained he unintentionally plagiarized a paper by taking notes on it — including writing down whole sentences — and using them in his own … Continue reading Can you plagiarize by mistake? In three papers?
A court in Brisbane, Australia, has found Parkinson’s researcher Caroline Barwood guilty of two charges of fraud and three counts of attempted fraud. Barwood, 31, was formerly based at the University of Queensland (UQ). Released on bail in 2014, Barwood had originally pleaded not guilty to the charges. Yesterday, according to 9News, a jury found her guilty on … Continue reading Australian court finds Parkinson’s researcher guilty of fraud
The week at Retraction Watch featured a cancer researcher retracting 19 studies at once from a single journal, and the story of how a 7-year-old came to publish a paper. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
A journal has issued an expression of concern (EOC) for a cancer study after the publisher received what it called a “credible” tip that its results may not be reliable. According to the EOC, published in RSC Advances, the paper is now under investigation. Here’s the EOC for “Filled and peptide-modified single-walled carbon nanotubes: synthesis, … Continue reading Cancer paper flagged due to “credible” concerns over its reliability, journal says
Recently, François-Xavier Coudert, a researcher at the Research Institute of Chemistry of Paris in France, noticed something strange: A nearly perfect image in a chemistry paper, with none of the typically expected “noise.” Last week, he started a thread on PubPeer, alerting readers to his concerns — namely, that a microscopy image showed hexagons with … Continue reading “The results were so perfect” — and now they’re being retracted
The scientific literature has seen its share of child prodigies – such as a nine-year-old who published a study in JAMA, and a group of eight-year-olds who reported on bumblebees in Biology Letters. But Alexandre Martin of the University of Kentucky sought to help his seven-year-old son get published in a non-traditional way – by … Continue reading “Bats are really cool animals!” How a 7-year-old published a paper in a journal
A new analysis of retractions from Korean journals reveals some interesting trends. For one, the authors found most papers in Korean journals are retracted for duplication (57%), a higher rate than what’s been reported in other studies. The authors also deemed some retractions were “inappropriate” according to guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) … Continue reading What do retractions look like in Korean journals?