This week saw us profiled in The New York Times and de Volkskrant, and the introduction of our new staff writer. We also launched The Retraction Watch Leaderboard. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Three biologists at Tokyo Gakugei University in Japan have retracted a 2014 Frontiers in Plant Science paper on abnormal root growth in Arabidopsis “in light of new experimental evidence” showing they fingered the wrong mutant gene. The journal editors are hailing the retraction as an “excellent example of self-correction of the scientific record.” The paper, “Mechanosensitive channel candidate … Continue reading “[T]hese things can happen in every lab:” Mutant plant paper uprooted after authors correct their own findings
This week at Retraction Watch was dominated by the Science same-sex marriage study, after we broke the news Wednesday morning that one of its authors had requested its retraction. (And crashed our servers in the process.) So the first section of this Weekend Reads will focus on pieces following up on that story: The New … Continue reading Weekend reads: Gay canvassing study redux; editors fired; how the world’s biggest faker was caught
The week at Retraction Watch featured a number of legal cases by scientists trying to suppress criticism about their work. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Frontiers in Pharmacology has retracted a paper on baicalin, an antioxidant sold in health food stores, because it had both “incorrect data and invalid statistical analyses.” A comment on PubPeer notes that one of the figures (see image to the right) contains two similar-looking flow cytometry images labeled with different values, which could be what the … Continue reading “Incorrect data” kills apoptosis paper
A cardiovascular group has retracted a conference proceeding abstract, because it too closely resembled a paper they published prior to the conference. The last author is baffled as to why the journal couldn’t have made that call before they published the abstract. Here’s the notice for “Increased beta-adrenergic inotropy in ventricular myocardium from Trpm4 knockout … Continue reading Heart paper will go on, but only in the first of two journals it was published in
The publisher Frontiers has issued a Statement of Concern about a paper denying that HIV causes AIDS, and has launched an investigation into how the paper was published in the first place. The paper, “Questioning the HIV-AIDS hypothesis: 30 years of dissent,” is written by Patricia Goodson of Texas A&M University and was published on … Continue reading Publisher issues statement of concern about HIV denial paper, launches investigation
Here’s another installment of PubPeer Selections:
As Retraction Watch readers probably know, we’re big fans of PubPeer, the post-publication peer review site that allows comments on papers. Discussions there have led to a number of corrections and retractions, and even more importantly, authors are starting to respond to clarify results, acknowledge errors, or otherwise advance knowledge. After all, as we often … Continue reading PubPeer Selections: Boosting memory in Science, extending lifespan in Nature, quantum anesthesia in PNAS
Earlier this month, we brought you the story of a retraction from the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology involving rivalry and alleged sock puppetry. The author of the now-retracted letter, physicist Lorenzo Iorio, claimed that another researcher was using fake names to criticize his work on arXiv.At the time, the editor … Continue reading Retraction of letter alleging sock puppetry now cites “legal reasons”