Weekend reads, part 2: Pressure to publish limits innovation; Frontiers a predatory publisher?
Lots of good reads elsewhere this week. As promised yesterday, here’s part 2:
Search Results for: medical
Surgery journal publishes — then retracts — response to letter that never appeared
How’s this for confusing: A surgery journal is retracting researchers’ response to a letter about their paper, because the letter was never actually published. According to the managing editor of the Annals of Surgery, the letter — about a 2011 analysis of IV fluids in trauma patients — was accepted, prompting the journal to ask … Continue reading Surgery journal publishes — then retracts — response to letter that never appeared
Weekend reads: Angry meta-analysts; imposter cell lines; when things go wrong
This week at Retraction Watch featured nine more fake peer review retractions, this time from Elsevier, and an update to the retraction count for one-time record holder Joachim Boldt. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Failure to reproduce key experiments retracts cancer study
A group of Chinese cancer researchers has retracted a paper in Medical Oncology after they discovered that “several key experiments” were not reproducible. The paper, “Decreased Warburg effect induced by ATP citrate lyase suppression inhibits tumor growth in pancreatic cancer,” was published in March. It found that suppressing the enzyme ATP citrate lyase could be … Continue reading Failure to reproduce key experiments retracts cancer study
Journal mistakenly publishes Parkinson’s case report twice
A journal has retracted a duplicate version of a case report about a patient with Parkinson’s disease after mistakenly publishing the paper twice. The Journal of Movement Disorders initially published the report — which detailed the case of an elderly woman with Parkinson’s disease whose symptoms worsened during drug treatment — in 2010. But it ended up printing it … Continue reading Journal mistakenly publishes Parkinson’s case report twice
Much of preclinical research into one cancer drug is flawed, says report
A review of preclinical research of a now widely used cancer drug suggests the studies contain multiple methodology flaws and overestimate the benefits of the drug. Specifically, the researchers found that most studies didn’t randomize treatments, didn’t blind investigators to which animals were receiving the drug, and tested tumors in only one animal model, which limits the … Continue reading Much of preclinical research into one cancer drug is flawed, says report
Is less publishing linked to more plagiarism?
Countries that publish less science appear to “borrow” more language from others than other, more scientifically prolific countries, according to a new small study. Using a novel approach of comparing a country’s total citations against its total published papers (CPP), the authors categorized 80 retractions from journals in general and internal medicine. This is a … Continue reading Is less publishing linked to more plagiarism?
Boldt’s retraction count upped to 94, co-author takes legal action to prevent 95th
We’ve found two recent retractions and an expression of concern for Joachim Boldt, former prominent anesthesiologist and currently Retraction Watch leaderboard’s 2nd place titleholder. He now has 94 retractions. One of the retracted articles contains falsified data, along with a researcher who didn’t agree to be a co-author, according to an investigation by the Justus Liebig University Giessen, where Boldt … Continue reading Boldt’s retraction count upped to 94, co-author takes legal action to prevent 95th
Weekend reads: FDA nominee authorship questions; low economics replication rates
The week at Retraction Watch featured a mysterious retraction from PLOS ONE, and a thoughtful piece by a scientist we’ve covered frequently on where we went wrong in that coverage. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Where I think Retraction Watch went wrong: A guest post from Paolo Macchiarini
We are pleased to present a guest post by Paolo Macchiarini, a surgeon best known for pioneering the creation of tracheas from cadavers and patients’ own stem cells. Macchiarini has faced some harsh criticisms over the years, including accusations of downplaying the risks of the procedure and not obtaining proper consent. We have covered the investigation, including … Continue reading Where I think Retraction Watch went wrong: A guest post from Paolo Macchiarini