To climate scientist Pieter Tans, a “novel” air sampling device in a recent paper looked a little too familiar. Specifically, like a device that he had invented — the AirCore, which he calls a “tape recorder” for air. The journal editors came up with a unique solution to the disagreement that followed, which the editor in chief called … Continue reading Inventors have a dust up over air sampling device
A Swedish ethical review board has censured two biologists and their employer, Uppsala University, for events related to “extensive image manipulations” in five papers published between 2010 and 2014. The case has led to criticism from an outside expert — who brought the allegations to Uppsala — over the current system in Sweden for handling … Continue reading Four retractions follow Swedish government findings of negligence, dishonesty
We have a new record for the longest time from publication to retraction: 80 years. It’s for a case report about a 24-year-old man who died after coughing up more than four cups of what apparently looked — and smelled — like pee. According to the case report titled “Een geval van uroptoë” published in 1923, … Continue reading We have a new record: 80 years from publication to retraction
A researcher who studies how to turn dairy cattle manure into natural gas falsified and fabricated data in a journal article and failed to declare a commercial conflict of interest, a Washington State University investigation has found. The study “Evaluation of Co-Digestion at a Commercial Dairy Anaerobic Digester” was published in 2011 in the journal … Continue reading A bullshit excuse? My lab notebook “was blown into a manure pit”
When researchers raised concerns about a 2009 Science paper regarding a new way to screen for enzymatic activity, the lead author’s institution launched an investigation. The paper was ultimately retracted in 2010, citing “errors and omissions.” It would seem from this example that the publishing process worked, and science’s ability to self-correct cleaned up the record. … Continue reading Why retraction shouldn’t always be the end of the story
Olivier Voinnet, a high-profile plant scientist at ETH Zurich, has earned a mega-correction. It wrapped up a rough year for the biologist, which included his seventh retraction, and a CNRS investigation that found evidence of misconduct. This latest correction, to a paper on the mechanisms behind RNA silencing in Arabidopsis, was published in RNA. The 2007 paper has been cited … Continue reading Voinnet’s notice count grows, as he notches his 18th correction
Here’s our first post of 2016. The week at Retraction Watch featured a retraction from JAMA, and our list of most-cited retracted papers. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
It’s been a great 12 months for Retraction Watch. We took some major steps as an organization. Some highlights:
Key assertions in a paper on homosexuality have been removed from the Journal of the Islamic Medical Association of North America, in what the notice describes as a “partial retraction.” The 2006 article “Homosexuality: An Islamic Perspective,” states that conversion therapy can be effective, and that gay people have poorer health. Those statements are among those that lack evidence, according to … Continue reading Author retracts statements about gay conversion therapy
The week at Retraction Watch featured our annual roundup of the year’s top retractions for The Scientist, a retraction from Science, and claims about a book Aristotle never wrote. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: