How one journal became a “major retraction engine”

If you think you’ve noticed more and more retractions at PLoS ONE recently, you’re not wrong. The journal retracted 53 papers last year. That’s not a record — that belongs to a journal that retracted more than 400 papers at once — nor is it that many more than the Journal of Biological Chemistry, which … Continue reading How one journal became a “major retraction engine”

“All very painful:” Two retractions to watch for, in eLife and PLOS ONE

We have news of two upcoming retractions, both following critiques on PubPeer. PLOS ONE is retracting a 2012 paper by researchers at the Istituto Superiore di Sanità in Rome and the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, “Interferon-β Induces Cellular Senescence in Cutaneous Human Papilloma Virus-Transformed Human Keratinocytes by … Continue reading “All very painful:” Two retractions to watch for, in eLife and PLOS ONE

Weekend reads: A new plagiarism euphemism; how Photoshop abuse destroys science; bias against women authors

The week at Retraction Watch featured a look at what happens to authors when a journal is delisted, a reminder of how hard it is to figure out whether a paper has been retracted, and a survey on how common plagiarism is in economics. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Guest post: What happened when we tried to get a book with misinformation about our field retracted

For much of the past year, we and several colleagues in our field have been trying to convince a publisher to retract a book.  Advocates are using the text because it contains details on how to advance numerous laws in the United States and throughout the world. The text is also currently being used to … Continue reading Guest post: What happened when we tried to get a book with misinformation about our field retracted

Weekend reads: Does publishing take too long?; Zika data complaints; a Valentine’s Day special

The week at Retraction Watch featured two high-profile resignations linked to the Paolo Macchiarini case, as well as a Q&A with a long-frustrated — and now vindicated — whistleblower. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Weekend reads: One researcher resents “cyberbullying” while another wishes peer reviewers would spank him

Another busy week at Retraction Watch. Here’s what was going on around the web in scientific publishing and related issues: “The part of our paper that I [Conley] regret is our crazy biological interpretation. I don’t know what I was thinking or why reviewers didn’t spank me on that…” A wonderfully honest quote from a … Continue reading Weekend reads: One researcher resents “cyberbullying” while another wishes peer reviewers would spank him