This week at Retraction Watch featured some big numbers: How a request to correct a single paper turned into 19 retractions, and 18 tips for giving horrible presentations. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
The BMJ has released a detailed correction to a much-debated article critiquing the expert report underlying the U.S. dietary guidelines. After the article was published in 2015, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) organized a letter signed by more than 100 researchers, urging the publication to retract the article. Today, the journal said it found “no … Continue reading BMJ won’t retract controversial dietary guidelines article; issues lengthy correction
Do pro-nuclear energy countries act more slowly to curb the effects of climate change? That’s what a paper published in July in the journal Climate Policy claimed. But the hotly debated study was retracted last week after the authors came to understand that it included serious errors. An August 22 press release about the original … Continue reading Authors retract paper linking nuclear power to slow action on climate change
The week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of a physics society’s press release quoting U.S. president-elect Donald Trump, and an apparent blow for clairvoyance research. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Not every study contains accurate information — but over time, some of those incorrect findings can become canonized as “fact.” How does this happen? And how can we avoid its impact on the scientific research? Author of a study published on arXiv in September, Carl Bergstrom from the University of Washington in Seattle, explains how the fight over information … Continue reading How false information becomes fact: Q&A with Carl Bergstrom
The week at Retraction Watch featured a look at where retractions for fake peer review come from, and an eyebrow-raising plan that has a journal charging would-be whistleblowers a fee. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
The week at Retraction Watch featured news of a fine for a doctor who took part in a controversial fake trial, and a likely unprecedented call for retraction by the U.S. FDA commissioner. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
The head of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has called for the retraction of a study about a drug that the agency itself approved earlier this week, despite senior staff opposing the approval. On September 19, the FDA okayed eteplirsen to treat Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), a rare genetic disorder that results in muscle degeneration and … Continue reading Amid controversial Sarepta approval decision, FDA head calls for key study retraction
The week at Retraction Watch featured a look at whether we have an epidemic of flawed meta-analyses, and the story of a strange case involving climate research and pseudonyms. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Recently, we reported that social psychologist and renowned data faker Diederik Stapel had found himself a new gig supporting research at a vocational university in the Netherlands — but it appears that was short-lived. According to multiple news reports, NHTV Breda will not be employing Stapel, after all. Here’s our Google translate of a portion from … Continue reading No academic post for fraudster Diederik Stapel, after all