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
Here’s another installment of PubPeer Selections:
A prestigious cancer journal has pulled an article over “concerns” regarding some of the figures, which PubPeer commenters had tagged as suspect. A few weeks after the paper was published on June 9, comments on PubPeer began accumulating. Commenters called out both potentially manipulated and repeated images. The exact timeline is not clear, because Oncogene does not list … Continue reading Fudged figures sink breast cancer paper
The White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) is taking a look at innovation and scientific research, and issues of reproducibility have made it onto its radar. Here’s the description of the project from the Federal Register:
The authors of a Journal of Experimental Medicine have retracted it, blaming the first author for data and figure manipulation. The paper, “The requirements for natural Th17 cell development are distinct from those of conventional Th17 cells,” was initially published in September 2011 and has been cited 25 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge. … Continue reading First author blamed for retraction in prestigious medical journal
The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD, Danish acronym UVVU) has partially reversed a December 2013 finding of misconduct against a scientist in Denmark, but has upheld most of its ruling. Bente Klarlund Pedersen, whose case was tied up with that of Milena Penkowa, another scientist in Denmark found guilty of misconduct, committed misconduct in … Continue reading Danish committee rejects much of Klarlund Pedersen’s appeal of misconduct findings