Weekend reads: Publisher under fire; Canadian scientists demand change; a troubled psychiatry trial
The week at Retraction Watch featured an unwitting co-author and a painful example of doing the right thing. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Search Results for: nature
Here’s why this lawyer defends scientists accused of misconduct
More scientists are trying to settle accusations of misconduct in court, a trend very familiar to Washington, DC-based lawyer Paul Thaler. Regular readers may recall the name of one of Thaler’s clients — Rakesh Kumar, a scientist at George Washington University who filed an $8 million lawsuit for how the school handled an investigation into his work. … Continue reading Here’s why this lawyer defends scientists accused of misconduct
Genotyping mistake costs lab two papers and year of work
Researchers are retracting two papers about molecular signalling in plants — including one from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) — after discovering some inadvertent genotyping errors. But that was only after they used the problematic plants for an entire year without realizing they’d made a mistake. In a pair of refreshingly transparent … Continue reading Genotyping mistake costs lab two papers and year of work
Researcher committed misconduct “recklessly,” says investigation
A physiology journal has retracted a paper after an institutional investigation found that portions of the work had been falsified by the first author. According to the notice issued by the American Journal of Physiology – Renal Physiology (AJP), the last author initiated the investigation at the University of Houston in Texas, which found the … Continue reading Researcher committed misconduct “recklessly,” says investigation
Investigation raises questions about top cancer researcher’s work
A prominent pancreatic cancer researcher has lost a meeting abstract and corrected a Nature paper following an institutional investigation. Queen Mary University of London determined that, in an abstract by Thorsten Hagemann, “elements of the study summarised by this abstract are not reliable.” Hagemann has recently issued a correction to a 2014 Nature paper he co-authored, which also … Continue reading Investigation raises questions about top cancer researcher’s work
Weekend reads: Open data’s downsides; do journals serve a purpose?; fraud allegations down in China
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:
Join our team: Retraction Watch needs a part-time editor
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
Trump vs. trump: Does the candidate affect the use of trump cards in Bridge?
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?
Do publishers add value? Maybe little, suggests preprint study of preprints
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
Engineering journal pulls two papers for “compromised” peer review
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