When someone has to retract a paper for misconduct, what are the odds they will do it again? And how can we use that information to stop repeat offenders? Those are the questions that Toshio Kuroki of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science and Akira Ukawa of RIKEN set out to tackle in … Continue reading How often do scientists who commit misconduct do it again?
Last year, the soil science community was rocked by reports that an editor, Artemi Cerdà, was accused of citation stacking — asking authors to cite particular papers — boosting his profile, and that of journals where he worked. (Cerdà has denied the allegations.) The case had some major fallout: Cerdà resigned from two journals and … Continue reading Can soil science research dig itself out from a citation stacking scandal?
Paul Brookes is a biologist with a passion for sleuthing out fraud. Although he studies mitochondria at the University of Rochester, he also secretly ran a science-fraud.org, a site for people to post their concerns about papers. Following legal threats, he revealed he was the author and shut the site in 2013 — but didn’t … Continue reading What if we could scan for image duplication the way we check for plagiarism?
Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, would you consider a tax-deductible donation of $25, or a recurring donation of an amount of your choosing, to support it? Thanks in advance. The week at Retraction Watch featured a major case of misconduct at The Ohio State University, … Continue reading Weekend reads: “Weaponized transparency;” fighting academic spam with humor; NIH cracks down
Question: Do you value Retraction Watch? If so, would you consider a tax-deductible donation of $25, or a recurring donation of an amount of your choosing, to support us? When researchers submitted a paper about a type of microparticle to PNAS, they wanted to give credit where it was due, and cite an unpublished manuscript … Continue reading PNAS wouldn’t let authors cite unpublished manuscript. Now, it admits it was wrong.
Title: AMPA receptor-mediated regulation of a Gi-protein in cortical neurons What Caught Our Attention: Usually, when journals publish corrections to articles, they also correct the original article, except when the original is unavailable online. When Nature noticed that some figure panels in a 20-year-old paper were duplicated, it flagged the issue for readers — but … Continue reading Caught Our Notice: Yes, a 20-year-old article is wrong — but it won’t be corrected online
A BMJ journal has retracted a 2017 paper that made a false claim about the clinical trial in question. The Acupuncture in Medicine paper reported the results of a clinical trial about the impact of acupuncture and Chinese herbal medicine on stroke, gathered from one center. However, in November, the editors of the journal discovered that … Continue reading Authors claim clinical trial data came from one center. It came from three.
Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, would you consider a tax-deductible donation of $25, or a recurring donation of an amount of your choosing, to support it? The week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of a paper on a “gut makeover,” a retraction following … Continue reading Weekend reads: Fallout from misconduct at Duke; does journal prestige matter?; the data on fake peer review
Over the objections of the authors, PLOS ONE has retracted a paper linking a diet designed to restore healthy gut bacteria to weight loss and other benefits. The study, published in June 2017, claimed to show that a “Microbiome restoration diet improves digestion, cognition and physical and emotional wellbeing.” The diet was one championed by … Continue reading Journal retracts study linking “gut makeover” to weight loss, improved health
How much role did a potentially problematic paper play in the demise of a once-promising compound? Researchers are questioning the validity of a high-profile article, published by Nature in 2006. Although the letter is 12 years old, the concerns have current implications: It was among the early evidence used to develop a cancer compound that … Continue reading Figures in cancer paper at root of newly failed compound called into question