Which journals will publish replications? In the first post in this series, Mante Nieuwland, of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, described a replication attempt of a study in Nature Neuroscience that he and his colleagues carried out. Yesterday, he shared the story of their first submission to the journal. In the final installment today, … Continue reading One team’s struggle to publish a replication attempt, part 3
Title: Curcumin-Free Turmeric Exhibits Activity against Human HCT-116 Colon Tumor Xenograft: Comparison with Curcumin and Whole Turmeric What Caught Our Attention: We haven’t heard much about Bharat Aggarwal since his seven retractions in 2016 propelled him onto our leaderboard (and long after he threatened to sue Retraction Watch for our reporting). There was a whisper … Continue reading Caught Our Notice: Researcher who once threatened to sue Retraction Watch now up to 19 retractions
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
The week at Retraction Watch featured a look at what happens to authors when a journal is delisted, a reminder of how hard it is to figure out whether a paper has been retracted, and a survey on how common plagiarism is in economics. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
We seem to be past the worst of our technical issues, so thanks for your patience with us over the past few weeks. (Some of the fixes came at a cost, so we would be remiss if we did not ask readers to consider a donation to support our work.) The week at Retraction Watch featured … Continue reading Weekend reads: Automated image duplication detection?; journal editor frustrations; cash for catching errors
Ever since Cornell food researcher Brian Wansink wrote a blog post one year ago praising a graduate student’s productivity, things have gone downhill for him. Although he initially lauded the student for submitting five papers within six months of arriving at the lab, the four papers about pizza have all since been modified in some … Continue reading “(Hundreds of hours of) work vindicated:” Critic of food researcher reacts to new retraction
The publisher Frontiers has retracted four papers in three of its journals after discovering they had been accepted with fake peer reviews. The problem of fake reviews has been on the research community’s radar since at least 2014, and several major publishers—including Springer, SAGE and BioMed Central—have retracted hundreds of papers accepted via fake peer … Continue reading Publisher issues first retractions for fake peer review, starts new checking policy
At least one disgruntled co-author has triggered the retraction of a paper presenting a novel approach to treating a rare, genetically inherited condition. The paper concerned research on Fragile X syndrome (FXS), characterized by both intellectual and physical abnormalities, which is linked autism. A compound that passed through phase 2 clinical trials in October 2015 … Continue reading Dispute over author order torpedoes paper on syndrome linked to autism
The week at Retraction Watch featured a look at retractions in China, and an expression of concern for a paper co-authored by a controversial journalist in Australia. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Last year, Boris Ratnikov was reading a paper and saw a familiar image. He quickly realized: The image was from a 2012 paper he’d written, but wasn’t cited. The 2016 Cell Metabolism paper he was reading had copied a figure from his 2012 PLOS ONE paper without referencing it. In September 2016, Ratnikov, who is … Continue reading When is a citation not enough?