Two days after issuing expressions of concern about controversial papers on Covid-19, The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine have retracted the articles because a number of the authors were not granted access to the underlying data. The Lancet paper, “Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a … Continue reading Lancet, NEJM retract controversial COVID-19 studies based on Surgisphere data
[See update on this story.] As controversy swirls around two papers that used data from Surgisphere, the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet have placed expression of concerns on the relevant papers. Here’s the NEJM expression of concern:
Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, we could really use your help. Would you consider a tax-deductible donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance. The week at Retraction Watch featured a look at authors who publish once every five days, … Continue reading Weekend reads: Top researchers resign over publishing issues; organized crime meets publishing; infamous fraudster rides in on a horse
The Retraction Watch Privacy Policy Welcome to Retraction Watch (retractionwatch.com), a site dedicated to reporting on scientific retractions and related issues. Retraction Watch is a project of The Center For Scientific Integrity, Inc., a 501(c)3 nonprofit corporation with headquarters in New York. Retraction Watch (referred to below as “the website,” “we,” “us,” “our”) is the … Continue reading Privacy policy
This week, we received a press release that caught our attention: A company is releasing software it claims will write manuscripts using researchers’ data. The program, dubbed “Manuscript Writer,” uses artificial intelligence (AI) to generate papers, according to the company that created it, sciNote LLC. A spokesperson explained the software generates a first draft the … Continue reading Newly released AI software writes papers for you — what could go wrong?
The week at Retraction Watch featured the revocation of a PhD, a questionable way to boost university rankings, and a look at what editors should do when a researcher known to have committed misconduct submits a new manuscript. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Four hundred eighty-six authors have been found guilty of misconduct by the Chinese government, the fall-out from a sweep of retractions by one journal earlier this year. In April, Tumor Biology retracted 107 papers that had been accepted based on faked reviews. Since many of the authors were based in China, the country’s Ministry of Science … Continue reading Nearly 500 researchers guilty of misconduct, says Chinese gov’t investigation
Hearsay is not admissible as evidence in court — and it doesn’t seem to go very far in science, either. A pair of researchers in the field of human evolution have lost a paper which contained data from “personal correspondence” that the providing party apparently did not enjoy seeing in print. The article, “Early hominin … Continue reading Inclusion of “personal correspondence” in evolution paper prompts retraction, new journal policy
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
Recently, at the end of a tutorial, a student asked Ann Rogerson a question she’d never heard before: Was it okay to use paraphrasing tools to write up assignments? Rogerson, a senior lecturer in the faculty of business at the University of Wollongong in Australia, was stumped — she’d never heard of these tools before. It turns … Continue reading A troubling new way to evade plagiarism detection software. (And how to tell if it’s been used.)