A fight over a paper posted on preprint server arXiv.org has divided two mathematicians. The authors initially posted the paper, which looks at the mathematical properties of spheres, in 2013. And that’s when the trouble started. Apparently, after submitting the paper to a journal and receiving reviewer feedback, co-authors Fabio Tal at the University of … Continue reading “Irreconcilable difference of opinion” divides math preprint
We’re pleased to introduce readers to Alice Dreger, a historian of science and medicine at the Medical Humanities and Bioethics Program in Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine. Her new book is “Galileo’s Middle Finger: Heretics, Activists, and the Search for Justice in Science,” out this week from Penguin Press. Read to the end for … Continue reading Yes, we are seeing more attacks on academic freedom: guest post by historian of science and medicine
Drug researchers in India have lost their 2013 paper in ACS Medicinal Chemistry Letters because the first author fabricated findings. The article, by a group from the Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, Vadodara, in Gujarat, was attempting to synthesize and screen novel clot-busting drugs; one compound exhibited the same activity as aspirin or warfarin, but … Continue reading Misconduct dissolves paper on possible clot-busters
The week at Retraction Watch featured a number of legal cases by scientists trying to suppress criticism about their work. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Marc Hauser. Dirk Smeesters. Diederik Stapel. Psychology has been home to some of the most infamous cases of fraud in recent years, and while it’s just a few bad apples who are spoiling the bunch, the field itself has seen an overall increase in retractions, according to a new paper by Jürgen Margraf appearing in Psychologische Rundschau and titled “Zur … Continue reading Psychology retractions have quadrupled since 1989: study
Apparently, you can’t keep Mario Saad down. The researcher, who had 12 figures in a paper corrected this week, was dealt a setback last week when a judge denied his motion to remove expressions of concern on four of his papers in the journal Diabetes, saying that would have amounted to prior restraint — essentially, censorship … Continue reading Diabetes researcher won’t give up court fight to quash expressions of concern
This week at Retraction Watch featured a change of heart by a journal, and a look at Nature’s addition of double-blind peer review. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Swiss researchers have retracted an abstract in Clinical Neurophysiology because only one of them actually knew about the paper — and what he submitted had “several mistakes.” The abstract, about electric impulses in the brain of comatose patients, originally appeared as a poster at the June 2014 joint meeting of multiple Swiss neuroscience societies. It was submitted by first author Alexandre … Continue reading Neuro journal pulls comatose brain abstract due to “several mistakes”
There are a number of fields that seem to punch above their weight on Retraction Watch: Anesthesiology, home to the world record holder (and runner-up), and psychology, home to Diederik Stapel and others. But the red-hot field of stem cell research is another that makes frequent appearances, last year’s STAP controversy being particularly prominent. There’s … Continue reading Are retractions more frequent in stem cell research?
David Vaux, a cell biologist at the Walter + Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research in Melbourne, explains how Nature could do more to remove bias from the peer review process. He previously wrote about his decision to retract a paper. Last week, Nature announced that they are to offer authors of papers submitted to … Continue reading David Vaux: Nature’s decision to add double-blind peer review is good, but could be better