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:
It was one of the most difficult posts we’ve ever written: A researcher’s eagerness to publish a paper before asking all co-authors for their permission forced him to retract the article, wasting a postdoc’s time and destroying a professional relationship in the process. This 2011 post wasn’t difficult to write because the facts were complex; … Continue reading After painful retraction, authors republish replicated findings five years later
After a journal began tagging papers that adopted open science practices — such as sharing data and materials — a few other scientists may have been nudged into doing the same. In January 2014, Psychological Science began rewarding digital badges to authors who committed to open science practices such as sharing the data and materials. A study published … Continue reading “I shared:” Can tagging papers that share data boost the practice?
“Eerily familiar”: That’s how Serdar Sayan of TOBB University of Economics and Technology in Turkey says it felt to read a submission to the Scandinavian Journal of Economics, after the journal asked him to review the manuscript. It turns out, it was Sayan’s paper, word for word, equation for equation, down to the last punctuation … Continue reading Ever been asked to review your own paper? This economist was
Four different journals have pulled papers from the same authors due to alleged duplication or manipulation of images. All four papers have two authors in common — Jianting Miao and Wei Zhang, both based at The Fourth Military Medical University in Xi’an City, Shaanxi, China. Many of the other co-authors are also listed in two … Continue reading “Mixed up” images earn biologists four retractions