Search Results for: "ferric fang"

Weekend Reads: A plagiarism fighter who plagiarizes; too much ado about reproducibility?; how scientists should be judged

Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, would you consider a year-end tax-deductible donation to support it?  The week at Retraction Watch featured an image so nice, it was used eight times, a co-author who forgot he’d used a figure elsewhere, and the 19th retraction … Continue reading Weekend Reads: A plagiarism fighter who plagiarizes; too much ado about reproducibility?; how scientists should be judged

NEJM issues unusual warning for readers about 1980 letter on opioid addiction

This week, the New England Journal of Medicine issued a type of editor’s note we’ve never seen before, on a highly influential letter published nearly 40 years ago. Above the one-paragraph letter, which reports data suggesting pain medications are not likely to cause addiction, the journal has added a note warning readers that the letter has … Continue reading NEJM issues unusual warning for readers about 1980 letter on opioid addiction

Why do researchers commit misconduct? A new preprint offers some clues

“Why Do Scientists Fabricate And Falsify Data?” That’s the start of the title of a new preprint posted on bioRxiv this week by researchers whose names Retraction Watch readers will likely find familiar. Daniele Fanelli, Rodrigo Costas, Ferric Fang (a member of the board of directors of our parent non-profit organization), Arturo Casadevall, and Elisabeth … Continue reading Why do researchers commit misconduct? A new preprint offers some clues

What leads to bias in the scientific literature? New study tries to answer

By now, most of our readers are aware that some fields of science have a reproducibility problem. Part of the problem, some argue, is the publishing community’s bias toward dramatic findings — namely, studies that show something has an effect on something else are more likely to be published than studies that don’t. Many have … Continue reading What leads to bias in the scientific literature? New study tries to answer

What do retractions look like in Korean journals?

A new analysis of retractions from Korean journals reveals some interesting trends. For one, the authors found most papers in Korean journals are retracted for duplication (57%), a higher rate than what’s been reported in other studies. The authors also deemed some retractions were “inappropriate” according to guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) … Continue reading What do retractions look like in Korean journals?

Weekend reads: Data sharing fees block access; Machiavellianism and gossip in science; “power pose” redux

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:

Have 1 in 5 UK academics fabricated data?

A small survey of UK academics suggests misconduct such as faking data and plagiarism is occurring surprisingly often. The survey — of 215 UK academics — estimated that 1 in 7 had plagiarized from someone else’s work, and nearly 1 in 5 had fabricated data. Here’s how Joanna Williams and David Roberts at the University of Kent … Continue reading Have 1 in 5 UK academics fabricated data?

One in 25 papers contains inappropriately duplicated images, screen finds

Elisabeth Bik, a microbiologist at Stanford, has for years been a behind-the-scenes force in scientific integrity, anonymously submitting reports on plagiarism and image duplication to journal editors. Now, she’s ready to come out of the shadows. With the help of two editors at microbiology journals, she has conducted a massive study looking for image duplication … Continue reading One in 25 papers contains inappropriately duplicated images, screen finds

Weekend reads: Calls for retraction a bad idea?; is scientific fraud a crime?

This week at Retraction Watch featured an unusual excuse for missing data, and a guilty plea in court for misconduct. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Researchers’ productivity hasn’t increased in a century, study suggests

Are individual scientists now more productive early in their careers than 100 years ago? No, according to a large analysis of publication records released by PLOS ONE today. Despite concerns of rising “salami slicing” in research papers in line with the “publish or perish” philosophy of academic publishing, the study found that individual early career researchers’ productivity has … Continue reading Researchers’ productivity hasn’t increased in a century, study suggests