Weekend reads: Bragging about burying bad science; women still underrepresented in Nature; does brilliance justify bad behavior?

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 look at a dozen scientific sleuths; the story of … Continue reading Weekend reads: Bragging about burying bad science; women still underrepresented in Nature; does brilliance justify bad behavior?

A new publishing approach — retract and replace — is having growing pains

Many journals are adopting a recently developed mechanism for correcting the scientific record known as “retract and replace” — usually employed when the original paper has been affected by honest errors. But if an article is retracted and replaced, can readers always tell? To find out, Ana Marušić at the University of Split School of … Continue reading A new publishing approach — retract and replace — is having growing pains

Probe finds misconduct in eight papers by researcher in Sweden

An external probe has concluded that a researcher based at the University of Gothenburg committed misconduct in multiple papers, all of which should be withdrawn. Among 10 papers by Suchitra Sumitran-Holgersson at the University of Gothenburg, an Expert Group concluded that eight contained signs of scientific misconduct. The Expert Group, part of Sweden’s Central Ethical … Continue reading Probe finds misconduct in eight papers by researcher in Sweden

Macchiarini, 3 co-authors found guilty of misconduct in 2015 paper

The Karolinska Institutet in Sweden has declared that once-lauded surgeon Paolo Macchiarini and three co-authors committed misconduct in a 2015 paper. The decision by KI’s vice chancellor will be followed by a request to retract the paper, published by the journal Respiration. In the paper, the researchers described the case of a man with an … Continue reading Macchiarini, 3 co-authors found guilty of misconduct in 2015 paper

Who reports more misconduct: Scientists in industry or academia?

Who will admit to keeping poor records, gifting authorship, or even more obvious forms of misconduct such as plagiarism? Simon Godecharle at University of Leuven and his colleagues asked 2000 scientists from academia and industry in Belgium, and reported their findings in a recent paper for Science and Engineering Ethics. We spoke to Godecharle about … Continue reading Who reports more misconduct: Scientists in industry or academia?

Journal replaces anti-vaccine paper it retracted for missing conflicts, “number of errors”

A journal retracted a paper about how conflicts of interest might be influencing research into the link between vaccines and autism because — wait for it — the authors failed to disclose conflicts of interest. According to the retraction notice, the editors retracted the paper without the authors’ agreement, because the authors had a host … Continue reading Journal replaces anti-vaccine paper it retracted for missing conflicts, “number of errors”

Weekend reads: Publishing’s day of reckoning; an Impact Factor discount — on lunch; a prize for negative results

The week at Retraction Watch featured mass resignations from a journal’s editorial board, software that writes papers for you, and a retracted retraction. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Swedish review board finds misconduct by Macchiarini, calls for six retractions

An ethical review board in Sweden is asking journals to retract six papers co-authored by former star surgeon Paolo Macchiarini, after concluding that he and his co-authors committed misconduct. One of the papers is the seminal 2011 article in The Lancet, which described the first case of a transplant using an artificial trachea seeded with … Continue reading Swedish review board finds misconduct by Macchiarini, calls for six retractions

Weekend reads: Preprints under scrutiny; a math retraction in politics; proving yourself wrong

The week at Retraction Watch featured a look at retractions in China, and an expression of concern for a paper co-authored by a controversial journalist in Australia. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Reader complaints prompt retraction of meta-analysis of heart-failure drug

A cardiology journal has retracted a 2016 meta-analysis after the editors had an, ahem, change of heart about the rigor of the study. The article, “Ivabradine as adjuvant treatment for chronic heart failure,” was published in the International Journal of Cardiology, an Elsevier title. The authors, a group at the Federal University of São Paulo, … Continue reading Reader complaints prompt retraction of meta-analysis of heart-failure drug