The week at Retraction Watch kicked off with news of the European Science Foundation threatening to sue a scientist for calling a review process “flawed.” Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
The week at Retraction Watch featured papers by a fake author with a brilliant if profane name, and the unmasking of fraudster Diederik Stapel as a sock puppet. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
It seemed like an egregious violation of academic standards. A researcher forwarded us a data access agreement from the University of Oxford, in which Schedule 4 read as follows:
The week at Retraction Watch featured yet another case of a researcher peer reviewing his own paper, and an odd defense of plagiarism. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Here’s another installment of PubPeer Selections:
This week at Retraction Watch featured revelations about legal threats to PubPeer, and a swift expression of concern for a paper denying the link between HIV and AIDS. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
The title of this post is the headline of our most recent column in LabTimes, which begins: As we write this in mid-August, Nature has already retracted seven papers in 2014. That’s not yet a record – for that, you’d have to go back to 2003’s ten retractions, in the midst of the Jan Hendrik … Continue reading Is it time for a retraction penalty?
Here’s another installment of PubPeer Selections:
Here at Retraction Watch, the week featured the revelations of the peer reviews of an early version of the STAP stem cell paper, and an announcement about a new partnership. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Retraction Watch readers are of course familiar with the STAP stem cell saga, which was punctuated by tragedy last month when one of the authors of the two now-retracted papers in Nature committed suicide. In June, Science‘s news section reported: Sources in the scientific community confirm that early versions of the STAP work were rejected … Continue reading “Truly extraordinary,” “simply not credible,” “suspiciously sharp:” A STAP stem cell peer review report revealed