The week at Retraction Watch featured news that a religion journal wouldn’t be retracting a paper despite evidence of forgery in the evidence it relied on, and also news that we’re hiring. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
We’re so inundated with story ideas and projects, we need some extra help! Specifically, we’re looking for a part-time editor who can be available during specific hours when we need an extra pair of hands. During that time, you would review tips and write up breaking stories if they arise, as well as edit guest … Continue reading Join our team: Retraction Watch needs a part-time editor
Did that headline make sense? It isn’t really supposed to – it’s a sum-up of a recent satirical paper by Columbia statistician Andrew Gelman and Jonathan Falk of NERA Economic Consulting, entitled “NO TRUMP!: A statistical exercise in priming.” The paper – which they are presenting today during the International Conference on Machine Learning in New York City – estimates … Continue reading Trump vs. trump: Does the candidate affect the use of trump cards in Bridge?
Academic publishers argue they add value to manuscripts by coordinating the peer-review process and editing manuscripts — but a new preliminary study suggests otherwise. The study — which is yet to be peer reviewed — found that papers published in traditional journals don’t change much from their preprint versions, suggesting publishers aren’t having as much of an influence … Continue reading Do publishers add value? Maybe little, suggests preprint study of preprints
An engineering journal has retracted two papers for faked or rigged peer review, but authors of one of the papers are objecting to the retraction. The first author of that paper told us he and his co-authors “absolutely disagree” with the retraction, and are prepared to use “legal means” to safeguard their “rights and interests.” He … Continue reading Engineering journal pulls two papers for “compromised” peer review
A PNAS paper that caught the media’s attention for suggesting that adding silk could stabilize vaccines and antibiotics has been pulled after the authors realized there were significant errors in the data analysis. According to the notice, the authors agreed to retract the 2012 paper; however, the corresponding author told us the authors did not think a … Continue reading Authors retract PNAS paper suggesting silk stabilizes vaccines
One journal has retracted a paper containing images that recently raised suspicions of obvious duplications, and another journal is planning to do the same. Scientists first leveled accusations against the newly retracted paper in Scientific Reports, along with two others by the same researchers, earlier this month on Twitter. One other journal — PeerJ — has announced … Continue reading Two journals retracting papers from University of Malaya featuring widely criticized figures
Remember last week, when JAMA replaced an article about the impact of moving homes on kids’ mental health after discovering some errors in the analysis? We’re going to see more of these somewhat unusual notices coming out of JAMA journals in the near future – the JAMA Network journals may issue more “retract and replace” … Continue reading Retract – and replace? JAMA may expand use of this tool
The week at Retraction Watch featured revelations of fraud in more than $100 million in government research, and swift findings in a much-discussed case. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Many figures in four papers by a research team in Malaysia contain duplication or manipulation, a university committee has found, calling for multiple retractions. We learned about issues with three of the papers, including one in Scientific Reports, earlier this week when they were the talk of Twitter. As journals issued expressions of concern, and an expert wondered how … Continue reading Figures questioned online were manipulated, says Malaysia investigation