We all make mistakes – but when it comes to the scientific literature, too many authors are making critical mistakes in their list of references, making it difficult for readers to retrieve a cited paper. We spoke with Marilyn Oermann, the Thelma M. Ingles Professor of Nursing at the Duke University School of Nursing, who … Continue reading You cited which paper?? Reference errors are more common than many realize
We spoke with Matt Hodgkinson about how he turned his “spidey sense” for what’s wrong with papers into a new position at Hindawi, one of the largest publishers of open-access journals. Retraction Watch: As the new Head of Research Integrity at Hindawi, what does your position entail? What does your typical day look like?
The week at Retraction Watch featured a look at where retractions for fake peer review come from, and an eyebrow-raising plan that has a journal charging would-be whistleblowers a fee. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
A researcher who was dismissed from Wayne State University — then lost a whistleblower lawsuit against it — has logged his first retraction. In 2012, after Christian Kreipke was dismissed from Wayne State, he filed a lawsuit, alleging that the institution had defrauded the U.S. government of $169 million in research funding. A judge dismissed the case in 2014, … Continue reading 1st retraction for researcher who lost whistleblower lawsuit
Although previous research has suggested peer reviewers are not influenced by knowing the authors’ identity and affiliation, a new Research Letter published today in JAMA suggests otherwise. In “Single-blind vs Double-blind Peer Review in the Setting of Author Prestige,” Kanu Okike at Kaiser Moanalua Medical Center in Hawaii and his colleagues created a fake manuscript … Continue reading Reviewers may rate papers differently when blinded to authors’ identities, new study says
A new analysis — which included scanning Retraction Watch posts — has identified some trends in papers pulled for fake peer review, a subject we’ve covered at length. For those who aren’t familiar, fake reviews arise when researchers associated with the paper in question (most often authors) create email addresses for reviewers, enabling them to … Continue reading What publishers and countries do most retractions for fake peer review come from?
The week at Retraction Watch featured news of a fine for a doctor who took part in a controversial fake trial, and a likely unprecedented call for retraction by the U.S. FDA commissioner. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
The BMJ is not going to retract a 2015 article criticizing the expert report underlying the U.S. dietary guidelines, despite heavy backlash from readers, according to the author of the article. As Politico reported today, the publication told journalist Nina Teicholz it wouldn’t retract the article, first published one year ago today. Teicholz confirmed to us the journal emailed … Continue reading BMJ won’t retract controversial dietary guidelines article, says author
An electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) journal has retracted two 2016 papers after uncovering problems in the data analyses, which the author says were due to language barriers. Interestingly, two authors of the newly retracted papers — Yu-Tao Xiang from the University of Macau in China and Gabor Ungvari from the University of Western Australia — also … Continue reading Authors retract two papers on shock therapy, citing language barriers
An investigation at the VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland has found no evidence of misconduct by one of its former researchers in a diabetes paper. We previously reported on the case after the VTT was accused of cutting corners in a previous investigation into Matej Orešič (now based at the Steno Diabetes Center in … Continue reading Finnish institute finds no evidence to support misconduct in diabetes paper