Here at Retraction Watch, we judge retraction notices every day. We even have a category called “unhelpful retraction notices.” But we haven’t systematically analyzed those notices, so lucky for us, a group of academics at Vanderbilt decided to. In a new paper published in a special issue of Publications — an issue whose editor, Grant … Continue reading A rating system for retractions? How various journals stack up
There were lots of pieces about scientific misconduct, publishing, and related issues posted around the web this week, so without further ado:
Last week, we reported on the retraction of a paper by Benjamin Jacob Hayempour, a researcher who had threatened to sue us last month for even reporting on another of his retractions. The journal, Cureus, told us at the time that the retraction — in which the article disappeared, without a notice — didn’t have … Continue reading Journal reveals real reason for retraction of paper by author who threatened to sue Retraction Watch
Another installment of Ask Retraction Watch: I am a postdoc and looking to supplement my income with medical writing (our lab recently didn’t get it’s funding renewed, so now on part-time to minimise costs). The most recent jobs I have been offered are two brief reports and one full article. A quick internet search of … Continue reading Is it ethical to ghost-write a paper?
Just 48 hours after publishing an article by Graham Cole and Darrel Francis last week alleging that Don Poldermans‘ scientific misconduct led to the deaths of some 800,000 Europeans over the past five years by tainting clinical guidelines, the European Heart Journal unceremoniously pulled the paper from its website Friday. Larry Husten at CardioBrief has … Continue reading Quickest withdrawal ever? Journal yanks paper alleging 800K deaths from Poldermans affair
Japanese health officials are reportedly investigating whether researchers fabricated data in a 2.8 billion yen ($21.12 million) Alzheimer’s drug trial. According to Japan Today: Health officials said they were questioning researchers after being told false data was used in clinical testing for the 2.8 billion yen government-backed Alzheimer’s study, aimed at improving diagnosis of the … Continue reading Japan officials allege data cooking in Alzheimer’s drug study
The first full week of 2014 featured a slew of stories and commentary about scientific publishing and related issues. Here’s a sampling:
A group of researchers in the Netherlands has retracted a paper once they realized that the findings weren’t reproducible and that there had been an error in the experiments. Here’s the notice for “Ubiquitin‐specific protease 4 is inhibited by its ubiquitin‐like domain,” by MP Luna‐Vargas, AC Faesen, WJ van Dijk, M Rape, A Fish, and … Continue reading Doing the right thing: Authors retract protein paper after finding experimental errors
Don Poldermans, the cardiology researcher in the Netherlands whose prominent career came to disgrace in a rather confusing scandal, finally has a retraction. Poldermans, formerly of Erasmus Medical Center, copped to charges of misconduct but not of fraud in the case — which, if you speak Dutch, you can read about in detail here. As … Continue reading First retraction appears in case of cardiologist Poldermans
We’re a bit late to this, but a Federal court in Massachusetts last fall heard a medical malpractice case with fascinating implications for journals. The case involved allegations by the plaintiffs — two children who had suffered permanent birth defects and their mothers — that they had lost previous malpractice suits because a fraudulent case report … Continue reading Federal court rebuffs request to discredit article that malpractice lawyers want retracted