The week at Retraction Watch featured the appeal of a modern-day retraction, and a look at whether a retraction by a Nobel Prize winner should be retracted 50 years later. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Additional lab tests, creating a clinical trial patient registry, and rewards for honesty are among the advice doled out in this week’s issue of the New England Journal of Medicine for researchers to help avoid the major issue of participants lying to get into clinical trials. In the Perspective, David B. Resnik and David J. McCann, … Continue reading Here’s how to keep clinical trial participants honest (and why that’s a big deal)
In 2011, a Nigerian journal published an essay entitled “What Makes a Journal Great” by its newly appointed editor, outlining his editorial philosophy — a philosophy that apparently includes lifting text from another source. That’s right — the Nigerian Medical Journal is now retracting the essay by Francis A. Uba, a surgeon who currently is provost of the … Continue reading Lesson learned: “What makes a journal great?” essay pulled for plagiarism
Earlier this year, Food and Nutrition Sciences retracted two papers from an author who criticized highly popular fish oil supplements after an additional round of peer review concluded his papers present a “biased interpretation,” among other issues. Last year, Brian Peskin lost a paper for an “undeclared competing interest” — namely, that he held patents and directed a … Continue reading Anti-fish oil researcher netted two more retractions
The Journal of Biological Chemistry has posted withdrawal notices for six papers that had already been withdrawn, some more than a decade ago, in an effort to resolve “PubMed indexing problems.” Each paper had been pulled by the author before it appeared in print, but still appeared online on the the journal’s website and in PubMed. … Continue reading Years after papers were withdrawn, JBC issues notices
A paper on chicory plants — also known as “blue daisies” — won’t get its moment in the sun. The “accepted author version” was published online in June, in Plant Signaling & Behavior. But before the so-called “version of record” could make it into an official issue of the journal — which is online-only — it was retracted. Why? The authors … Continue reading Plant paper pulled when authors can’t pay fees
Researchers have pulled a paper about a drug used to treat pancreatic tumors due to “statistical errors.” The 2014 paper suggested a drug that appears to treat pancreatic tumors also works in Chinese patients. We’re not exactly sure what went wrong with “A randomized phase II study of everolimus for advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors in Chinese patients,” however, because … Continue reading Cancer drug paper nulled by “statistical errors”
The week at Retraction Watch featured the unmasking of the people behind PubPeer, and an editor doing the right thing following a high-profile retraction. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
The creators of PubPeer dropped their own anonymity today, as part of an announcement about a new chapter in the life of the post-publication peer review site. By now, Retraction Watch readers will be familiar with PubPeer.com. Founded in 2012, the commenting site has allowed for robust discussions of scientific papers — which in turn have led to … Continue reading PubPeer founders reveal themselves, create foundation
The week at Retraction Watch featured the results of a massive replication study, yet another retraction for Diederik Stapel, and a messy situation at PLOS. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: