Researchers have retracted a paper about a new molecular target for cancer after realizing they had mistaken the identity of their cell line. It’s all too easy to mix up cell lines, so we see plenty of retractions for that reason — and, according to an expert in the area, many more cases lurk uncorrected in … Continue reading Misidentified cell line fells cancer paper
Can’t get enough of the personal and professional politics that dog a scientific career? On your off-hours, you can play a new game called Lab Wars, which lets players reenact the best – and the worst – parts of climbing the scientific career ladder. It was developed by two researchers — Caezar Al-Jassar, a structural … Continue reading Can misconduct be fun? A new game wants to find out
Authors have retracted a pair of PLOS ONE papers after an investigation suggested the articles might contain some fiction. In the papers, the authors describe collecting and analyzing the DNA of mosquitoes to look for changes following the introduction of bed nets treated with insecticides to combat malaria. However, an investigation by the Institut de Recherche pour … Continue reading PLOS ONE retracts 2 malaria papers over doubts experiments ever took place
A report on the first few years of “researcher rehab” suggests that three days of intensive training have a lasting impact on participants. Specifically, among participants — all of whom had been found guilty of at least one type of misconduct — the authors report that: A year later, follow-up surveys indicate that the vast majority … Continue reading Should researchers guilty of misconduct go to “rehab”?
Today, we bring you a case of a serial plagiarizer. Martin W. F. Stone was a philosophy professor at the University of Leuven — by one account “widely admired and highly respected” — until 2010, when an investigation at the school concluded that his work is “highly questionable in terms of scientific integrity.” Over the past … Continue reading Philosopher earns 14th retraction for plagiarism
This week at Retraction Watch featured what may be a record for plagiarism, a paper retracted because the device researchers claimed to use hadn’t arrive in the institution yet, and a technical glitch, which meant you may have missed some of our posts. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
A leading medical journal is taking a second look at a recent high-profile paper about elephants’ lower risk of cancer, after receiving a call for retraction from a somewhat unusual corner: the animal rights group PETA. This isn’t the first time the activist group has called for a retraction — last year, it nudged a … Continue reading JAMA takes all calls for retraction seriously — even from PETA
Dear Retraction Watch readers: Those of you signed up for our emails for every post may have wondered why we haven’t sent you any emails since Saturday. Well, it wasn’t because we didn’t want to. We had a technical glitch, which we’ve now fixed. Apologies for that, and here are links to the posts that … Continue reading Some posts you may have missed: Impressive amounts of plagiarism; PhD revocation; a poll, and more
What is the difference between “reproducible” and “replicable”? And how does each relate to results that are “generalizable” and “robust”? Researchers are using these terms interchangeably, creating confusion over what exactly is needed to confirm a scientific result, argues a new paper published today in Science Translational Medicine. Here’s how the US National Science Foundation (NSF) … Continue reading What does “reproducibility” mean? New paper seeks to standardize the lexicon
Authors have retracted a study just three months after publishing it, upon realizing they made “several critical errors.” For one, the authors didn’t actually collect the data they claim to in the title of the paper, which reported on methods to screen patients for recurrence of lung cancer. The authors included data from positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT), … Continue reading Paper reports data from PET/CT scan, years before it arrived