A former veterinary scientist at the University of Maryland has been found guilty of misconduct, including fabrication of data, by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI). According to ORI:
Over the past few days, we’ve noticed a spike in traffic — sometimes so large that it crashes our site — to older posts about Judy Mikovits. It appears that Mikovits is once again in the news. Here’s a story from Vice that provides some context:
We’ve been tracking retractions of papers about COVID-19 as part of our database. Here’s a running list, which will be updated as needed. (For some context on these figures, see this post, our letter in Accountability in Research and the last section of this Nature news article. Also see a note about the terminology regarding … Continue reading Retracted coronavirus (COVID-19) papers
Journals have retracted 30 papers, and added expressions of concern to 13 more, because the research likely involved organs from executed prisoners in China. The issue surfaced as early as 2016, and two of the retractions occurred in 2017, but all of the other retractions, and all of the expressions of concern, happened after a … Continue reading Journals have retracted or flagged more than 40 papers from China that appear to have used organ transplants from executed prisoners
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. Sending thoughts to our readers and wishing them the best in this uncertain time. The week … Continue reading Weekend reads: Coronavirus meets scientific publishing; publish or perish loses in court; retractions in cancer research
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: The top retractions of 2019; Two retractions and three corrections … Continue reading Weekend reads: 100 fake professors; study on police killings retracted; false data won’t scuttle company buyout
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: The retraction of a paper claiming a link between the … Continue reading Weekend reads: Stolen identity and peer review; key heart data concealed; psychology’s ‘collective self-deception’
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 look at why an infamous paper on autism and … Continue reading Weekend reads: Double-dipping with industry funding; a bully is rehired; organized crime scholar charged with money laundering
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: two investigations at King’s College London that found “poor research … Continue reading Weekend reads: Is nutrition science the worst-performing science?; gender bias in peer review; the Sherlock Holmes of science fraud
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 retraction demand from CrossFit; a “case of good science” … Continue reading Weekend reads: “Banished” data used in a paper; cancer group’s database draws ethical scrutiny; company employees banned as peer reviewers