Search Results for: nature

EMBO investigation yields two more retractions and three corrections for Voinnet

An investigation into the work of Olivier Voinnet by The EMBO Journal has led to another two retractions and three more corrections for the high-profile plant scientist, now suspended from the CNRS for two years. According to the authors, Voinnet was responsible for some of the errors; all papers have been questioned on PubPeer. The EMBO J, … Continue reading EMBO investigation yields two more retractions and three corrections for Voinnet

Judge dismisses defamation suit against diabetes journal

Mario Saad can’t catch a break — yesterday, a Massachusetts judge dismissed his defamation suit against the American Diabetes Association, publisher of Diabetes, which published an expression of concern regarding four of his papers in March. The researcher has tried — and failed — to use the courts to remove the EoC. In Saad’s latest attempt to employ … Continue reading Judge dismisses defamation suit against diabetes journal

17 retractions from SAGE journals bring total fake peer review count to 250

On Monday, we reported on 64 new retractions from Springer journals resulting from fake peer reviews. Yesterday, SAGE — which retracted 60 papers for the same reason just over a year ago — added 17 additional retractions to their list. The articles were published in five different journals, and one retraction involved authorship fraud in … Continue reading 17 retractions from SAGE journals bring total fake peer review count to 250

64 more papers retracted for fake reviews, this time from Springer journals

This is officially becoming a trend: Springer is pulling another 64 articles from 10 journals after finding evidence of faked peer reviews, bringing the total number of retractions from the phenomenon north of 230. Given that there have been about 1,500 papers retracted overall since 2012, when we first reported on the phenomenon, faked reviews have been … Continue reading 64 more papers retracted for fake reviews, this time from Springer journals

Weekend reads: Top science excuses; how figures can mislead; a strange disclosure

The week at Retraction Watch featured a primer on research misconduct proceedings, and some developments in the case of Joachim Boldt, who is now second on our leaderboard. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

8 things you might not know about research misconduct proceedings: Guest post

Have you ever wondered what could happen if you’re accused of misconduct and face official proceedings? We are pleased to present a guest post from Callan Stein, a lawyer who represents U.S. researchers in misconduct cases, who describes some nuances many may not realize about these situations.  Most researchers know that being accused of research … Continue reading 8 things you might not know about research misconduct proceedings: Guest post

BMC editors update retraction after investigation clears authors of faking peer reviews

Editors at BioMed Central have taken the unusual step of updating a retraction notice after an investigation found the authors were not responsible for a peer review process gone awry. The paper is one of  dozens of other papers retracted in March for fake peer reviews. That month, the paper “Clinical application of contrast enhanced ultrasound to … Continue reading BMC editors update retraction after investigation clears authors of faking peer reviews

Drugmaker accused of omitting side effect data from 2003 Risperdal paper

A 2003 paper may have left out potentially “significant” data on the long-term side-effects of an antipsychotic drug used in children, according to a former head of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. As reported by the Toronto Star, David Kessler is alleging that Janssen, the maker of Risperdal (and owned by Johnson & Johnson), omitted data about the risks … Continue reading Drugmaker accused of omitting side effect data from 2003 Risperdal paper

Weekend reads: Academic article brokering; favorite fieldwork bloopers; worst peer review ever

This week, we marked the fifth anniversary of Retraction Watch with the announcement of a generous new grant. We also covered the retraction of a slew of papers in a journal plagued by problems. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

New $300,000 grant marks the fifth anniversary of Retraction Watch

Five years ago today, we wrote our first post, “Why write a blog about retractions?” And although every year since has been terrific, this year we have the most to celebrate so far. Here are some highlights: