The retractions appear to be trickling in for Thomas Webster, a once-prominent chemistry researcher who left his post at Northeastern University after nearly 70 of his papers were flagged on PubPeer for concerns about the data in the studies. But while the publisher of a journal he co-founded — and left earlier this year — … Continue reading Publisher won’t retract most papers by chemist editor-in-chief who left university post under a cloud
Dove Press, which late last year retracted more than a dozen articles by a U.S. physician who appears to have used the articles and other publications as marketing material for dietary supplements he sold, has pulled six more of his papers. The new retractions make 20 removals by Dove — a unit of Taylor & … Continue reading Supplement-selling doctor who ran afoul of FDA and state medical board up to 20 retractions
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 year-ed tax-deductible donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance. The week at Retraction Watch featured: Publisher retracts 14 papers by doctor who ran afoul … Continue reading Weekend reads: $1.5 million payout after failure to disclose conflicts; systematic review retractions; entire class penalized for cheating
Dove Press last week retracted 14 papers by Marty Hinz, a Minnesota doctor who caught the attention of the U.S. FDA years ago for hyping supplements sold by a company he once owned. The 14 articles — on the use of supplements to treat conditions ranging from Crohn’s disease to Parkinson’s disease — were among … Continue reading Publisher retracts 14 papers by doctor who ran afoul of U.S. FDA for marketing supplements
Three years after work from his lab was the subject of “serious allegations,” a professor at Deakin University in Australia has left his post, Retraction Watch has learned. In an October 6, 2020 letter to staff at Deakin’s School of Medicine obtained by Retraction Watch, Dean Gary Rogers writes that Jagat Kanwar, who joined the … Continue reading Researcher leaves post at Australian university years after papers come under scrutiny
Peer reviewers are supposed to be experts in their fields, competent enough at least to spot methodological errors, wayward conclusions and implausible findings. But checking references? Apparently, not so much. A journal about academic medicine has retracted a 2020 article because its reviewers and editors didn’t bother to confirm that the references said what the … Continue reading ‘An isolated incident’: Should reviewers check references?
We’ve been tracking retractions of papers about COVID-19 as part of our database. Here’s a running list, which will be updated as needed. (For some context on these figures, see this post, our letter in Accountability in Research and the last section of this Nature news article. Also see a note about the terminology regarding … Continue reading Retracted coronavirus (COVID-19) papers
More than two years after being made aware of undisclosed conflicts of interest by a Minnesota physician who ran afoul of the U.S. FDA for health claims about supplements sold by his company, a publisher has added expressions of concern on 20 of the doctor’s papers. As we reported in August 2019, on Feb. 23, … Continue reading Publisher slaps expressions of concern on 20 papers by nutrition supplement-selling doctor
Over the years, many papers have cited the work of Retraction Watch, whether a blog post, an article we’ve written for another outlet, or our database. Here’s a selection. Know of one we’ve missed? Let us know at [email protected]. Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like … Continue reading Papers that cite Retraction Watch
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: two investigations at King’s College London that found “poor research … Continue reading Weekend reads: Is nutrition science the worst-performing science?; gender bias in peer review; the Sherlock Holmes of science fraud