Weekend reads: Macchiarini guilty of misconduct; controversial PACE data to be released; gender bias at conferences

This week at Retraction Watch featured the return of a notorious fraudster, and plagiarism of plagiarism. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Weekend reads: Elsevier’s “stupid patent of the month;” how Republicans and Democrats retract; hospital apologizes for published case report

The week at Retraction Watch featured a shooting by a researcher fired for misconduct, and the creation of fake computer-generated peer reviews. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Nutrition researcher Chandra, who lost libel suit, charged with health care fraud

A nutrition researcher with multiple retractions who unsuccessfully sued the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) for libel has been charged with defrauding a state health insurance plan. The Toronto Star reports that a warrant has been issued for the arrest of Ranjit Kumar Chandra for billing the Ontario Health Insurance Plan for “services that were either not provided … Continue reading Nutrition researcher Chandra, who lost libel suit, charged with health care fraud

Weekend reads: Scientific society vote rigging; why publish in predatory journals; academic apartheid?

The week at Retraction Watch featured a new member of our leaderboard and a discussion of what would happen if peer reviewers didn’t look at results. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

UK tribunal orders release of data from controversial chronic fatigue syndrome study

A tribunal in the UK has rejected an appeal by Queen Mary University of London, who sought to reverse a previous order that they release data from a controversial 2011 paper in The Lancet about chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). The decision is one in a long series of judgments about the so-called PACE trial, which reported … Continue reading UK tribunal orders release of data from controversial chronic fatigue syndrome study

Should systematic reviewers report suspected misconduct?

Authors of systematic review articles sometimes overlook misconduct and conflicts of interest present in the research they are analyzing, according to a recent study published in BMJ Open. During the study, researchers reviewed 118 systematic reviews published in 2013 in four high-profile medical journals — Annals of Internal Medicine, the British Medical Journal, The Journal of the American … Continue reading Should systematic reviewers report suspected misconduct?

Weekend reads: Manuscript submission headaches; Trophy Generation goes to grad school; is science fucked?

The week at Retraction Watch featured an inscrutable retraction notice, and a raft of new retractions for a cancer researcher who once threatened to sue us. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

UK doctor banned from practice after fabricating data in grant applications

A prominent cancer researcher in England has been banned from practicing medicine and has lost his funding from a UK charity after being found to have fabricated data in grant applications. The moves against the researcher, Thorsten Hagemann, come after investigations by the General Medical Council, akin to a U.S. state medical board, and Hagemann’s former … Continue reading UK doctor banned from practice after fabricating data in grant applications

Who is Ranjit Kumar Chandra? A timeline of notoriety

Last month, Ranjit Kumar Chandra was denied an extension to file an appeal of his lawsuit against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC). It seemed to mark the end of a long fall for the self-proclaimed “father of nutritional immunology,” who has ended up with multiple high-profile retractions and on the wrong end of a costly libel … Continue reading Who is Ranjit Kumar Chandra? A timeline of notoriety

Weekend reads: More Impact Factor scrutiny; $10 million fine for overbilling; protected Canadian fraudsters

The week at Retraction Watch featured the loss of a Harvard researcher’s PhD for misconduct, and the harrowing tale of a whistleblower. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: