Search Results for: nature

Weekend reads: “Research parasites;” CRISPR controversy; access to PACE data denied

The week at Retraction Watch featured a brewing case over GMO research, a 10-reason retraction. and a retraction and apology from the CBC. Before we get to this week’s reads from elsewhere, we’re happy to announce that we’re launching a daily email newsletter that will include posts from the last 24 hours, as well as links to … Continue reading Weekend reads: “Research parasites;” CRISPR controversy; access to PACE data denied

Lawsuit against Ole Miss for rescinded Sarkar job offer dismissed; briefs filed in PubPeer case

We recently obtained court documents showing that, in September, a judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by cancer researcher Fazlul Sarkar against the University of Mississippi after it rescinded a job offer after reviewing concerns raised about his research on PubPeer. Sarkar’s connection to PubPeer will be familiar to many readers — he has also taken the site … Continue reading Lawsuit against Ole Miss for rescinded Sarkar job offer dismissed; briefs filed in PubPeer case

Here are the 10 — yes, 10 — reasons PLOS ONE retracted this paper

PLOS One is retracting a paper for overlapping with a Wikipedia page. And for containing material lifted from other sources. And for “language errors.” And for insufficient evidence that authors found the pathogens floating around in hospital air that they claimed to find. The instances of plagiarism are a “huge problem,” each “enough for retraction on … Continue reading Here are the 10 — yes, 10 — reasons PLOS ONE retracted this paper

Anonymous complaint about Dutch economist is “unfounded”: Report

Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU) has dismissed an anonymous accusation against economist Peter Nijkamp and two of his colleagues, including one of his graduate students, regarding issues related to “data acquisition and data processing.” The announcement, released last week, determined the latest complaint was “unfounded:”

Fast-tracked PNAS papers are cited less often — but gap is shrinking

An analysis of more than 50,000 papers submitted to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) shows that those published using its “contributed track” — in which academy members can fast-track their own papers by coordinating the peer-review process themselves — have been cited less often than regular submissions, but that gap is shrinking. … Continue reading Fast-tracked PNAS papers are cited less often — but gap is shrinking

Oops! Authors accidentally include extra patients in biopsy paper

A paper that compared two gauges of needles to take samples of pancreatic masses has been retracted after authors unintentionally included patients from another trial. “Randomized Trial Comparing the Flexible 19G and 25G Needles for Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration of Solid Pancreatic Mass Lesions,” published a year ago in Pancreas, notes that: A total of 100 patients … Continue reading Oops! Authors accidentally include extra patients in biopsy paper

Cancer Cell paper under investigation following anonymous queries on PubPeer

A Cancer Cell paper that caused a flurry of activity on the website PubPeer is under investigation, after the last author announced on the site that he’d requested a correction from the journal. The 2012 paper sparked a lively dialogue last month on the post-publication discussion site, as commenters questioned Western blot images in which … Continue reading Cancer Cell paper under investigation following anonymous queries on PubPeer

Weekend reads: A celebrity surgeon’s double life; misconduct in sports medicine; researcher loses honor

This week at Retraction Watch featured a literally bullshit excuse for fake data, a new record for time from publication to retraction, and news of an upcoming retraction from Science. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Science retracting paper by chemists cut off from NSF funding

The National Science Foundation will no longer fund a pair of chemists who “recklessly falsified data,” according to a report from the NSF’s Office of Inspector General, unless they “take specific actions to address issues” in a 2004 Science paper. That paper is going to be retracted as soon as possible, Science told us. The co-authors that … Continue reading Science retracting paper by chemists cut off from NSF funding

Suspicions of data manipulation lead to correction of testicular cancer paper

The corresponding author of a paper on testicular cancer is telling readers to discount a figure after she learned it may have been manipulated. Although that one figure in the 2005 paper in the British Journal of Cancer may be problematic, the authors found data to support the other figures, and its conclusions. This isn’t the first … Continue reading Suspicions of data manipulation lead to correction of testicular cancer paper