Search Results for: casadevall

Weekend reads: Vaccine-neurological damage paper retracted under protest; buy a PhD thesis for $10,000; retraction by press release?

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 three-part series about what happened when a team tried … Continue reading Weekend reads: Vaccine-neurological damage paper retracted under protest; buy a PhD thesis for $10,000; retraction by press release?

Weekend reads: Heart drug scandal widens; sexual harassment allegations force editor’s resignation; a dying scientist’s rogue vaccine trial

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 boycott by thousands of researchers of a new Nature … Continue reading Weekend reads: Heart drug scandal widens; sexual harassment allegations force editor’s resignation; a dying scientist’s rogue vaccine trial

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

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

Journal’s new program: Choose your own reviewers – and get a decision in days

Peer review has numerous problems: Researchers complain it takes too long, but also sometimes that it is not thorough enough, letting obviously flawed papers enter the literature. Authors are often in the best position to know who the best experts are in their field, but how can we be sure they’ll choose someone who won’t … Continue reading Journal’s new program: Choose your own reviewers – and get a decision in days

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:

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:

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

Why retraction shouldn’t always be the end of the story

When researchers raised concerns about a 2009 Science paper regarding a new way to screen for enzymatic activity, the lead author’s institution launched an investigation. The paper was ultimately retracted in 2010, citing “errors and omissions.” It would seem from this example that the publishing process worked, and science’s ability to self-correct cleaned up the record. … Continue reading Why retraction shouldn’t always be the end of the story