Last week, JAMA issued some unusual notices, letting readers know they should use caution when reading an editorial and letters associated with now-retracted articles by a bone researcher in Japan. The notices — for papers by Yoshihiro Sato, now up to 14 retractions — remind readers not to heed the results of the now-retracted papers, … Continue reading JAMA tells readers: “Caution advised.” Here’s why.
The week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of a 35-year-old paper written by a cat, and the retraction of a study about a controversial gene editing technique. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
A 2016 study in New England Journal of Medicine has received a substantial correction, which affected several aspects of the article. Typically, an error that affects so much of a paper would undermine the results (and possibly lead to a retraction). But in this case, the revised dose calculations actually strengthened the findings, according to … Continue reading Big corrections usually weaken findings. But a recent NEJM one strengthened them, author says
A journal has retracted a paper after the university notified the editors that the authors presented the gruesome details of a patient who they didn’t directly treat. But the paper’s corresponding author disputes that claim, arguing that the first author — a radiologist, who has since passed away, provided a crucial diagnosis in this case. We’ve tried … Continue reading When a tractor stabs a man in the eye, who gets to write up the case report?
A sweeping analysis of more than 5,000 papers in eight leading medical journals has found compelling evidence of suspect data in roughly 2% of randomized controlled clinical trials in those journals. Although the analysis, by John Carlisle, an anesthetist in the United Kingdom, could not determine whether the concerning data were tainted by misconduct or … Continue reading Two in 100 clinical trials in eight major journals likely contain inaccurate data: Study
BMJ Global Health has pulled a paper that criticized U.S. research of the effects of cervical cancer screening in India over defamation concerns. That’s not what the notice on the paper says, however — at the moment, it just reads: This article has been withdrawn. However, forwarded email correspondence between the first author and an associate … Continue reading BMJ journal yanks paper on cancer screening in India for fear of legal action
Could a scientific paper ever be considered an advertisement? That was the question posed to a Tokyo court, in a criminal case where prosecutors argued — at the behest of Japan’s ministry of health — that a peer-reviewed paper containing faked data should be considered “fraudulent or exaggerated advertising” under that country’s laws. In that case, … Continue reading Could bogus scientific results be considered false advertising?
The week at Retraction Watch featured a look at how long journals take to respond to retraction requests, and news of a $10 million settlement for research misconduct allegations. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Last year, a researcher cast doubt on a bone scientist’s clinical trials, suggesting some of the findings may not be legitimate. So what’s happened since? Since 2015, journals have retracted 14 papers by bone researcher Yoshihiro Sato, based at Mitate Hospital in Japan, for issues ranging from self-plagiarism, to problems with data, to including co-authors without their consent. … Continue reading A shadow was cast on a bone researcher’s work. What are journals doing about his papers?
A few months ago, a researcher told Evelien Oostdijk there might be a problem with a 2014 JAMA study she had co-authored. The study had compared two methods of preventing infection in the intensive care unit (ICU). But a separate analysis had produced different results. Oostdijk, from the University Medical Center Utrecht in The Netherlands, immediately … Continue reading “Think of the unthinkable:” JAMA retraction prompts author to urge others to share data