Search Results for: Frontiers

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

Weekend reads: Science press releases under fire; a new plagiarism excuse; win $1,000

The week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of an entire issue of a journal and a renewable energy researcher agree to retract ten papers for recycling, and saw The Australian put us on its list of “30 Most Influential” in higher education for 2016. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Neuroscience paper retracted after colleagues object to data publication

A paper published this October in the journal Frontiers In Neuroscience was retracted the following month because the authors’ collaborators did not give them permission to publish some of the data. The paper detailed how and why the authors use the software program Nengo to test large simulations of nervous system networks. As part of … Continue reading Neuroscience paper retracted after colleagues object to data publication

We’re wasting a lot of research funding using the wrong cell lines. Here’s one thing we can do.

If you could help reduce the waste of tens of billions of dollars per year in research spending, you’d do it, right? This is the second in a series of two guest posts about the havoc misidentified cell lines can wreak on research, from Leonard P. Freedman, president of the Global Biological Standards Institute. Freedman who … Continue reading We’re wasting a lot of research funding using the wrong cell lines. Here’s one thing we can do.

Journal repels a paper on a magnetic material after authorship, funding issues

A paper on the properties of a magnetic material is being retracted after including an author without his permission, and omitting a funding source. According to the note, the work was done in Miao Yu‘s lab at Chongqing University in China; the authors then added Yu’s name to the paper without his authorization, and neglected to list a relevant … Continue reading Journal repels a paper on a magnetic material after authorship, funding issues

Improving reproducibility: What can funders do? Guest post by Dorothy Bishop

We’re pleased to present a guest post from Dorothy Bishop, a researcher who focuses on neurodevelopmental disorders at Oxford University, and is also heavily involved in efforts to improve reproducibility in science, including chairing the steering committee of a recent symposium on the topic organised by the Academy of Medical Sciences. Here, she talks about … Continue reading Improving reproducibility: What can funders do? Guest post by Dorothy Bishop

Weekend reads: Papers de-emphasized for funding; reproducibility revolution; reining in fraud in China

The week at Retraction Watch featured a particularly misleading retraction notice, and a university stripping a graduate of her PhD for misconduct. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Cholesterol paper duplicated; “The authors believed that they had taken the necessary steps to withdraw.”

A review journal is pulling a 2013 article about advances in researchers’ understanding of cholesterol after seeing the same article in another journal. Although the retracted paper appeared first — online in Biological Reviews in February, 2013 — the journal decided to retract it after learning the authors had initially submitted it elsewhere. The first submission was … Continue reading Cholesterol paper duplicated; “The authors believed that they had taken the necessary steps to withdraw.”

Lizards aren’t getting hotter faster than the planet after all, says retraction

A paper that raised alarms by suggesting lizards were warming even faster than the planet has been retracted after the authors employed the wrong method to measure temperatures. Some scientists thought that, because of the way lizards retain heat to regulate their cold-blooded bodies, they might be more sensitive to temperature changes. Well, not in this case. … Continue reading Lizards aren’t getting hotter faster than the planet after all, says retraction

Weekend reads: Journal invents time machine; endless author lists; is nuance overrated?

The week at Retraction Watch featured the unmasking of the people behind PubPeer, and an editor doing the right thing following a high-profile retraction. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: