The week at Retraction Watch featured an unusual warning from the New England Journal of Medicine, and the withdrawal of a paper over a fear of legal threats. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Last week, Emily Putnam-Hornstein, an associate professor at the University of Southern California, was reading what seemed like a noteworthy new report from the RAND Corporation on the child welfare system. But then she realized that some of the key estimates were off. When she sent the report to some colleagues, they agreed. Curious, Putnam-Hornstein and … Continue reading RAND withdraws report on child welfare reform for further analysis
The fallout continues for a study conducted at a local CrossFit gym by researchers at The Ohio State University. First it was corrected, now it’s been retracted, and it continues to be the basis of litigation against both the authors and the publisher. Editors at the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research have decided to … Continue reading Journal retracts Ohio State CrossFit study at center of lawsuits
Neuroscientist Stanley Rapoport just can’t catch a break. Rapoport, who’s based at National Institute on Aging, is continuing to experience fallout from his research collaborations, after multiple co-authors have been found to have committed misconduct. Most recently, Rapoport has had four papers retracted in three journals, citing falsified data in a range of figures. Although the notices do not … Continue reading NIH neuroscientist up to 16 retractions
Mistakes happen. Including, sometimes, putting articles that should be freely available behind a paywall. This occasionally happens — though likely not with alarming frequency, according to publishing expert Charles Oppenheim, who recently wrote about the issue in Scholarly Kitchen. Still, the costs can literally be high, both for the authors who paid to make their articles free … Continue reading How upset should we get when articles are paywalled by mistake?
BMJ Global Health has pulled a paper that criticized U.S. research of the effects of cervical cancer screening in India over defamation concerns. That’s not what the notice on the paper says, however — at the moment, it just reads: This article has been withdrawn. However, forwarded email correspondence between the first author and an associate … Continue reading BMJ journal yanks paper on cancer screening in India for fear of legal action
The week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of a much-discussed paper on using blockchain to prevent scientific misconduct, and a researcher who lost nine studies at once from a single journal. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Chinese biomedical researchers estimate that 40% of research in their country has been affected in some way by misconduct, according to a new survey. The authors are quick to caution against putting too much stock in this figure due to the subjective nature of the survey, published in Science and Engineering Ethics. The estimates also … Continue reading Four in 10 biomedical papers out of China are tainted by misconduct, says new survey
Could a scientific paper ever be considered an advertisement? That was the question posed to a Tokyo court, in a criminal case where prosecutors argued — at the behest of Japan’s ministry of health — that a peer-reviewed paper containing faked data should be considered “fraudulent or exaggerated advertising” under that country’s laws. In that case, … Continue reading Could bogus scientific results be considered false advertising?
A physics journal has retracted a 2011 paper by a group of scientists based in Italy, noting it’s “literally copied” from a paper by the same authors. This is the 12th retraction for the paper’s first author Alberto Carpinteri, who is known in the engineering community for championing some controversial ideas, such as that the Shroud … Continue reading Controversial researcher loses 12th paper that’s “literally copied;” authors object