A fish scientist in Iran has now lost 13 papers about the properties of Sturgeon sperm — try saying that five times fast — and other ichthyological topics over concerns about faked peer review. The three most recent retractions come from the Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition. According to the notice:
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 collaboration with Undark looking at how scientists who commit … Continue reading Weekend reads: How to get away with scientific fraud; what’s wrong with nutrition research; a second chance after misconduct
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 three-part series about what happened when a team tried … Continue reading Weekend reads: Vaccine-neurological damage paper retracted under protest; buy a PhD thesis for $10,000; retraction by press release?
Before we present this new post, a question: Do you enjoy reading Retraction Watch? If so, we could really use your help. Would you consider a tax-deductible donation to support our work? Thanks in advance. How did a deeply flawed paper, which contradicts mainstream science on climate change, pass peer review? That is what three editorial … Continue reading Flawed climate science paper “exposed potential weaknesses” in the peer review process
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 neither-correction-nor-retraction that made no one happy, a debate over … Continue reading Weekend reads: A new publishing scam; reproducibility as a political weapon; prosecuting predatory publishers
When we last heard from Eve Armstrong one year ago today, she was a postdoc at the BioCircuits Institute at the University of California, San Diego, musing mathematically about what would have happened if she had asked one Barry Cottonfield to her high school prom in 1997. Today, she is a postdoc at the Computational … Continue reading Clue fans, here’s scientific proof that it was Colonel Mustard with a candlestick
Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, would you consider a tax-deductible donation to support it? The week at Retraction Watch featured the story of how two highly cited papers turned out to be wrong; a big prize for a researcher who has been dogged by … Continue reading Weekend reads: 20th anniversary of a fraud; uses and misuses of doubt; how common is scooping?
The authors of a highly cited 2016 research letter on a way to improve the efficiency of solar panels have retracted their work following “concerns about the reproducibility.” Given the potential importance of the data, it would be nice to know what exactly went wrong, and why. However, the retraction notice doesn’t provide many details, … Continue reading “Major advance” in solar power retracted for reproducibility issues
The week at Retraction Watch featured a look at whether scientists in industry or academia admit to more misconduct, another strange publication twist for a vaccine study, and the correction of a study that claimed anti-gay attitudes could take more than a decade off of gay peoples’ lifespans. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
An engineering journal has retracted three 2016 papers. The reason: They had been cited too often. Although the reason for the retractions may sound odd, the editor, Minvydas Ragulskis, told Retraction Watch he was concerned an author had engaged in citation manipulation. Specifically, Ragulskis explained that the majority of the citations came from papers at … Continue reading Three papers retracted… for being cited too frequently