A former veterinary scientist at the University of Maryland has been found guilty of misconduct, including fabrication of data, by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI). According to ORI:
We’ve been tracking retractions of papers about COVID-19 as part of our database. Here’s a running list, which will be updated as needed. (For some context on these figures, see this post, our letter in Accountability in Research and the last section of this Nature news article. Also see a note about the terminology regarding … Continue reading Retracted coronavirus (COVID-19) papers
How long should a retraction take? As Retraction Watch readers may recall, that’s a question we ask often. In 2018, for example, we wrote a post noting that nearly two years after the University of Maryland, Baltimore, had requested retractions, the journals had done nothing. Some of the papers have since been retracted. We have … Continue reading A year after a university asked two Elsevier journals to retract papers, they haven’t
Journals have retracted 30 papers, and added expressions of concern to 13 more, because the research likely involved organs from executed prisoners in China. The issue surfaced as early as 2016, and two of the retractions occurred in 2017, but all of the other retractions, and all of the expressions of concern, happened after a … Continue reading Journals have retracted or flagged more than 40 papers from China that appear to have used organ transplants from executed prisoners
Jasti Rao, who once earned $700,000 a year at the University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria and was named the first “Peorian of the Year” before a misconduct investigation put an end to his time there, has now lost eight papers. Rao’s case is among the more colorful that we’ve covered. A highly-regarded … Continue reading Former star cancer researcher who sued his university for discrimination notches eighth retraction
Over the years, many papers have cited the work of Retraction Watch, whether a blog post, an article we’ve written for another outlet, or our database. Here’s a selection. Know of one we’ve missed? Let us know at [email protected]. Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like … Continue reading Papers that cite Retraction Watch
A researcher at the University of Maryland, along with two former colleagues, has had three papers retracted in the past six months following an institutional investigation that found evidence of image manipulation. The three retractions share three authors: Hua Zhou, Ying Hua Yang and John Basile, an associate professor of oncology and diagnostic sciences at … Continue reading U Maryland group up to three retractions following investigation
The journal Diabetes has retracted two 2006 papers by a group of researchers in Germany whose work has long been the subject of concerns about image duplication and manipulation. The first author of the articles is Kathrin Maedler, a prominent diabetes specialist at the University of Bremen, where she’d been a named professor but lost … Continue reading Tired of waiting for a university, a publisher commissions its own investigation — and retracts two papers
More than five years after comments appeared on PubPeer about a 2012 paper in PLoS ONE with a raft of problematic images — and a deceased member of the group whom the corresponding author suggests might have been able to support the validity of the data — the journal has retracted the article. The article, … Continue reading Death, retirement, and inability to contact authors leads to retraction of paper first flagged five years ago
Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, we could really use your help. Would you consider a tax-deductible donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance. The week at Retraction Watch featured: A rare permanent ban on U.S. federal research funding for … Continue reading Weekend reads: Grad student who alleged discrimination dismissed; academics who play dumb; when papers cite predatory works