When a computer scientist approached a journal about editing a special issue, little did the journal know he — or she — was using a stolen identity. Before the jig was up, someone posing as a researcher named Xavier Delorme had edited three articles on optimization problems for The Scientific World Journal. The scammer used a fake email address, … Continue reading Imposter edits journal in latest peer review scam
Surgeon Paolo Macchiarini did not apply for the necessary ethics approval to perform the pioneering transplants he’s known for, according to the Swedish Research Council. Chief Legal Counsel Anna Hörnlund, who wrote a letter in this week’s The Lancet, says Macchiarini’s work needed to obtain ethical approval from one of six regional ethical review boards, as required by … Continue reading Macchiarini did not obtain necessary ethics approvals, says Swedish Research Council
This week at Retraction Watch featured a confession about research misconduct, and a debate over whether a paper should have been retracted. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
A research assistant at King Saud University (KSU) has lost his job after he used material from a student’s thesis without permission or attribution in a paper. Lakshmana Krishnappa was terminated after a disciplinary committee considered his case last November, the vice dean for postgraduate training and research at KSU told Retraction Watch. In April of last year, … Continue reading Research assistant fired for using student’s thesis in a paper
Journals typically shy away from publishing data and text readers have seen before — but amidst the newly established norms of open science and data sharing, what counts as a prior publication? We’re asking ourselves that question after learning that JAMA Pediatrics has rejected a letter rebutting a recent study in the journal about sexual assault on college campuses after deciding that … Continue reading Does posting on PubPeer count as prior publication? Journal says yes, rejects letter rebutting campus sexual assault data
Authors of a highly cited biology paper in the Journal of Cell Science (JCS) have corrected the data underlying one of the figures. The 2003 paper, “The transcription factor Slug represses E-cadherin expression and induces epithelial to mesenchymal transitions: a comparison with Snail and E47 repressors,” has been cited 566 times, according to Thomson Reuters Web … Continue reading Authors correct highly cited biology paper due to “genuine mistake”
The week at Retraction Watch featured news that one in 25 papers in a massive screen includes inappropriate image manipulation, and of the eighth and ninth retractions for a neuroscience team. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
A researcher accused of misconduct by an anonymous Japanese blogger has corrected a 2003 paper in Circulation Research, after providing a university investigation with the original source files. Allegations of fraud have dogged Shokei Kim-Mitsuyama for years, and even caused him to step down from his position as editor in chief at another journal. However, Kim-Mitsuyama and his … Continue reading Raw files help fix 2003 figure by heart researcher accused of fraud
Authors have retracted a highly cited JAMA Psychiatry study about depression after failing to account for some patient recoveries, among other mistakes. It’s a somewhat unusual notice — it explains that the paper has been retracted and replaced with a new, corrected version. The study, which included 452 adults with major depressive disorder, concluded that cognitive therapy … Continue reading Authors retract, replace highly cited JAMA Psych paper for “pervasive errors”
Journals have retracted two papers after realizing that they contain “nearly identical” abstracts and introductions, published only months apart. The two retracted papers, along with a third that also contains similar text, all conclude that a certain polymorphism could signal a risk for coronary artery disease among Chinese people, though each paper presents different data. … Continue reading Journals retract two heart papers with “nearly identical” abstracts