Researchers have retracted a biology paper that included an image mismatch — despite the fact that, as they claim, another image in the same paper confirms the original findings. The authors say they plan to resubmit the paper with the corrected figure panel. The second to last author — Carlo Croce, chair of the department of … Continue reading Journal retracts paper due to image mismatch; one co-author alleges fraud
The week at Retraction Watch featured the harrowing story of a would-be whistleblower subjected to a forced mental exam (part of our partnership with the news team at Science), and Jeffrey Beall’s site about predatory publishers going dark. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Sometime in the middle of 2015, Jennifer Byrne, professor of molecular oncology at the University of Sydney, began her journey from cancer researcher to a scientific literature sleuth, seeking out potentially problematic papers. The first step was when she noticed several papers that contained a mistake in a DNA construct which, she believed, meant the … Continue reading What turned a cancer researcher into a literature watchdog?
Nearly five years ago, researchers suggested that the vast majority of preclinical cancer research wouldn’t hold up to follow-up experiments, delaying much needed treatments for patients. In a series of articles publishing tomorrow morning, eLife has released the results of the first five attempts to replicate experiments in cancer biology — and the results are decidedly mixed. … Continue reading At last, cancer reproducibility project releases some results — and they’re mixed
A 2016 study was retracted from a Frontiers journal after editors realized the authors had omitted experiments that didn’t support the hypothesis. Gearóid Ó Faoleán, ethics and integrity manager at Frontiers, which publishes Frontiers in Plant Science, told us: In accordance with our complaints protocol, the Field Chief Editor led the investigation that resulted in the decision … Continue reading “Crucial experiments” missing from retracted plant study
The week at Retraction Watch featured a discussion of whether peer reviewers should replicate experiments, and a look at whether social psychology really has a retraction problem. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Around two years ago, when mathematics researcher Jean Ecalle submitted a paper to Acta Mathematica Vietnamica, he saw that he had the option of making the paper open access. So he checked a box on the submission form — which included a mention of the fees that he apparently missed — and didn’t think anything of it. … Continue reading Major publisher threatened to sue author who didn’t realize he owed open access fees
A journal has retracted a surgery study by researchers at Brown University after noticing it included data that was not intended for research purposes. (Incidentally, the data were collected by the publisher of the journal.) Ingrid Philbert, managing editor of the Journal of Graduate Medical Education — which published the paper — told Retraction Watch … Continue reading Journal retracts surgery study with data “not intended for use in research”
The week at Retraction Watch featured the heartfelt response of a researcher when she found out a paper she’d reviewed had been retracted, and a new member of our leaderboard. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
While we are often among the first to chuckle at a good sting of a predatory publisher, there have probably been enough of them by now to have made the point. And even Ottawa Citizen reporter Tom Spears — whose stings have been among the most hilarious — seems to agree. He didn’t want to … Continue reading For this fake editorial, “merit of artistic writing” was enough for publication