Weekend reads: Tortured reviewers, why failure is good, journals without editors?
This week at Retraction Watch, an explosives paper burned up, and we found that we’re cited in a $8 million lawsuit. Here’s what’s happening elsewhere:
This week at Retraction Watch, an explosives paper burned up, and we found that we’re cited in a $8 million lawsuit. Here’s what’s happening elsewhere:
St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis has temporarily halted enrollment in six bone marrow transplant trials due to concerns over how side effects were being identified in medical records, Retraction Watch has learned. According to a source familiar with the trials, five of the six being suspended were all enrolling children with blood cancers … Continue reading Exclusive: St. Jude Children’s suspends enrollment in cancer trials over toxicity concerns
For decades, the U.S. FDA has uncovered misconduct in clinical trials but hidden it from the public, according to a new paper in JAMA Internal Medicine. The study, by New York University journalism professor Charles Seife, looked at 78 publications resulting from trials where the FDA found serious misconduct, including “failure to protect the safety of patients” and … Continue reading “FDA has repeatedly hidden evidence of scientific fraud,” says author of new study
This week at Retraction Watch featured the debut of our new editor, and a unicorn. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
It’s always nice when a journal editor actually uses words the way they’re meant to be used instead of employing euphemisms. In 2009, the African Journal of Biomedical Research published an article on the differences in heart rates when people ran backwards versus forwards. Unfortunately, five years later, the journal found out the paper was a … Continue reading A unicorn: Journal publishes euphemism-free plagiarism notice
The authors of a 2007 PNAS paper that provided molecular details for how calorie restriction may act on Sir2 enzymes to extend life are now retracting their research after discovering a figure was compromised by “several unintentional anomalies in the background image.” According to study author David W. Piston at Vanderbilt University, first author Qinghong … Continue reading Authors retract 2007 PNAS paper on aging due to figure’s “unintentional anomalies”
As Retraction Watch readers know, public health officials are concerned about a U.S. measles outbreak. As The New York Times notes: The United States has already had more cases of measles in the first month of 2015 than the number that is typically diagnosed in a full year. This follows a year in which the number of … Continue reading Fraud’s long tail: Measles outbreak shows why it’s important to look downstream of retractions
This week at Retraction Watch featured polar opposites: Two new entries in our “doing the right thing” category, and one in our plagiarism euphemism parade. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
One of the papers from a massive heart disease study in China, published in the Lancet, has been retracted and republished after the authors noticed a statistical error. The article, by authors from Peking Union Medical College in China, Yale University, and elsewhere, presented the results of the China PEACE-Retrospective Acute Myocardial Infarction Study, part of … Continue reading Lancet retracts and republishes cardiology paper with admirable notice
A group in the Netherlands has retracted a case study on the diarrheal pathogen Campylobacter jejuni, commonly found in animal feces, after repeated tests showed the bacteria was actually C. fetus, which also causes spontaneous abortion in cows and sheep. The 46-year-old man who had previously had an aortic valve replacement came to the doctors with endocarditis, an inflammation of … Continue reading Authors issue a model retraction for mistaken bacterial identity