The week at Retraction Watch featured a retraction by a Nobel laureate, the eight excuses journal editors hear in responses to questions about data, and a description of a “disease” that affects many scientists. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
In July 2017, just days after accepting and publishing a paper, a physics journal discovered “several scientific errors” and decided to retract it. But the authors—Alexander Kholmetskii and Tolga Yarman—strongly objected to the journal’s decision, so much so they published a detailed rebuttal to the retraction on the preprint server arXiv. The paper explores a … Continue reading After journal retracts their paper, authors post rebuttal on arXiv
The week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of a paper that had been called “anti-vaccine pseudoscience,” a retraction following threats of violence against an editor, and an editorial board member’s resignation over how a journal handled a case of plagiarism. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
A biologist is crying foul at a journal’s decision to correct (and not retract) a paper he claims plagiarized his work — and one of his colleagues has resigned from the journal’s editorial board as a result. The 2016 paper, published by Scientific Reports, is an application of a previously published algorithm designed to better … Continue reading Board member resigns from journal over handling of paper accused of plagiarism
The week at Retraction Watch featured admissions of fake data from a biotech company whose compound is now in clinical trials, a look at who recycles text, and the apparent demotion of a researcher who had a paper on video games retracted. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
The week at Retraction Watch featured a look at retractions in China, and an expression of concern for a paper co-authored by a controversial journalist in Australia. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
The week at Retraction Watch featured an expression of concern in Science just days after a paper was published, mass editorial board resignations over a paper defending colonialism, and two papers retracted for publisher errors. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Science has issued an expression of concern for a widely covered materials science paper published on Friday, citing issues with the supplementary data. The paper — which caught the attention of multiple news outlets — added properties to cotton fibers in vitro, potentially enabling researchers to manufacture fabric that can fluoresce or carry magnetic properties. The … Continue reading Post-publication peer review in action: Science flags paper just days after publication
The week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of a paper linked to vaccines, and what happens when a journal retracts 107 papers at once. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
In 1982, Bruce Le Catt wrote a response to a paper in the Australasian Journal of Philosophy critiquing an earlier article about prosthetic vision. But Le Catt was no ordinary author. No, he was a cat, the beloved pet of David Lewis, a world-class philosopher who just happened to be the author of the article … Continue reading After 35 years, philosophy journal corrects article…by a cat