If you happen to pick up this month’s issue of Economic Modelling, there’s a little surprise on page 307—blank pages. Publisher Elsevier has retracted a paper from that space because it “inadvertently published” the paper in the journal. In fact, Elsevier meant to include the paper in the pages of its other journal, Energy Economics. … Continue reading A tale of two journals: Elsevier retracts paper after publishing it in the wrong journal
Northwestern University has reposted a publication from the Medical Humanities & Bioethics Program at the Feinberg School of Medicine that included a controversial essay about oral sex, after it was pulled for more than a year. The essay was included in an issue guest edited by faculty member Alice Dreger—who penned a post for us in March about the ways … Continue reading Northwestern pulls bioethics publication with oral sex essay, reposts one year later
A pair of animal nutrition researchers in India have now had a second paper on the nutritional value of a fungal treatment for wheat straw retracted, and one of the authors is very unhappy about it. M.S. Mahesh of the National Dairy Research Institute at Deemed University claims a co-author issued “abusive letters” to an editor of the journal where the first … Continue reading Food fight: Animal nutrition author disputes two retractions
Last month, the community was shaken when a major study on gay marriage in Science was retracted following questions on its funding, data, and methodology. The senior author, Donald Green, made it clear he was not privy to many details of the paper — which raised some questions for C. K. Gunsalus, director of the National … Continue reading “If you think it’s rude to ask to look at your co-authors’ data, you’re not doing science”: Guest post
Who has the most retractions? Here’s our unofficial list (see notes on methodology), which we’ll update as more information comes to light: Joachim Boldt (220) See also: Editors-in-chief statement, our coverage Yoshitaka Fujii (172) See also: Final report of investigating committee, our reporting, additional coverage Yoshihiro Sato (124) See also: our coverage Hironobu Ueshima (124) … Continue reading The Retraction Watch Leaderboard
Here at Retraction Watch, we are reminded every day that everybody (including us) makes mistakes — what matters is, how you handle yourself when it happens. That’s why we created a “doing the right thing” category, to flag incidents where scientists have owned up to their errors and taken steps to correct them. We’re not suggesting … Continue reading The consequences of retraction: Do scientists forgive and forget?
The American Journal of Pathology has posted a note of concern to a 2002 paper about retinoblastoma after discovering two sets of figures “share significant overlap… suggesting that they did not originate from different specimens.” The overlap was “simultaneously brought to the attention of the Editors” by both the corresponding author and a “concerned reader.” The … Continue reading “Significant overlap” between figures spurs note of concern for 13-year-old retinoblastoma paper
A new study suggests that much of what we think about misconduct — including the idea that it is linked to the unrelenting pressure on scientists to publish high-profile papers — is incorrect. In a new paper out today in PLOS ONE [see update at end of post], Daniele Fanelli, Rodrigo Costas, and Vincent Larivière performed a retrospective analysis of … Continue reading Pressure to publish not to blame for misconduct, says new study
The Journal of Immunology is retracting a 2006 article about the role of exosomes in pregnancy at the behest of the University of Louisville in Kentucky, following a misconduct investigation that “determined multiple figures” in the paper were falsified. First author Douglas Taylor is a pioneer in exosome biology, having discovered the release of exosomes from tumor … Continue reading Exosome pioneer’s paper retracted after investigation finds “multiple” faked figures
The week at Retraction Watch featured a marriage proposal tucked into a paper’s acknowledgements section, the retraction of a controversial Science advice column, and The New York Times pushing for more focus and funding on research misconduct. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: