The week at Retraction Watch featured controversy over an economics paper, and a report of a researcher who faked more than 70 experiments. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Citation omissions in an economics preprint have set off a wave of recrimination and speculation on a widely read economics discussion board. Commenters accuse the authors of purposely omitting citations that would have undermined the paper’s claims to novelty and contributions to the field, leveling acrimony and personal attacks. Economists Petra Persson at Stanford and … Continue reading Economists go wild over overlooked citations in preprint on prenatal stress
When authors get new data that revise a previous report, what should they do? In the case of a 2015 lung cancer drug study in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), the journal published a letter to the editor with the updated findings. Shortly after the paper was published, a pharmaceutical company released new data showing the drug … Continue reading How should journals update papers when new findings come out?
The editors of a journal that recently retracted a paper after the peer-review process was “compromised” have published the fake reviews, along with additional details about the case. In the editorial titled “Organised crime against the academic peer review system,” Adam Cohen and other editors at the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology say they missed “several fairly obvious … Continue reading Editors say they missed “fairly obvious clues” of third party tampering, publish fake peer reviews
The week at Retraction Watch featured a discussion of why science has bigger problems than retractions, and a look at what happened when a journal decided to get tough on plagiarism. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Authors have retracted a paper from Cell after they were unable to reproduce data in two figures, compromising their confidence in some of the findings. The authors revisited their experiments after another lab was unable to replicate their data, about proteins that may play a role in lung cancer. The first author told Nature News in 2013 that … Continue reading Authors retract non-reproducible Cell paper
If you need evidence of the value of transparency in science, check out a pair of recent corrections in the structural biology literature. This past August, researchers led by Qiu-Xing Jiang at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center corrected their study, first published in February 2014 in eLife, of prion-like protein aggregates called MAVS … Continue reading Structural biology corrections highlight best of the scientific process
A journal has retracted a paper about a molecular diagnosis for leishmaniasis out of concern it could lead to incorrect clinical diagnoses. According to Parasitology Research, all data behind the figures in the main manuscript and supporting information are correct, but the authors’ misinterpretation of the data could lead doctors to diagnose patients incorrectly. Let’s take a … Continue reading Journal pulls parasite paper over potential for patient harm
Advocates of low-carbohydrate diet are voicing concern about a recent paper that suggested the diet could cause weight gain, contrary to previous research. One expert has even called for its retraction. The study, published in Nutrition & Diabetes in February, also found that the low-carb diet did little to prevent the progression of type 2 diabetes. … Continue reading Researchers decry study warning of low-carb diet risks
The week at Retraction Watch featured an economist being asked to review his own paper, and a new member of our leaderboard. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: