Followers of this blog know that “a reader” seems to be the force behind a huge number of retractions – and that, despite the apparent unwillingness of journals to name them, they are real people. One of the more prolific “readers” is Elisabeth Bik, the data sleuth whose efforts to identify problematic images has led … Continue reading Journals acknowledge that a critical “reader” has a name: Elisabeth Bik
Retraction Watch readers may recall the name Jennifer Byrne, whose work as a scientific sleuth we first wrote about four years ago, and have followed ever since. In a new paper in Scientometrics, Byrne, of New South Wales Health Pathology and the University of Sydney, working along with researchers including Cyril Labbé, known for his work … Continue reading What happened when a group of sleuths flagged more than 30 papers with errors?
We make a point of never calling for a particular paper’s retraction, nor ever weighing in on whether a journal should have made that move. That would be, we often say, like a financial reporter recommending stocks. But a recent expression of concern is sorely testing our resolve on the matter. The expression of concern … Continue reading A paper plagiarizes an article retracted for plagiarism and other sins — but it isn’t being retracted.
The journal Artificial Cells, Nanomedicine, and Biotechnology has attached expressions of concern to 13 papers published in 2019 that a group of sleuths have flagged for potentially being from a paper mill. In February, Elisabeth Bik wrote on her blog: Based on the resemblance of the Western blot bands to tadpoles (the larval stage of … Continue reading Journal slaps 13 expressions of concern on papers suspected of being from a paper mill
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 an exclusive about a Russian company that claims to have … Continue reading Weekend reads: A vaping study gets muddied; the “F-word” in science; prof quits following allegations of cocaine bacchanals
Wouldn’t it be terrific if manuscripts and published papers could be checked automatically for errors? That was the premise behind an algorithmic approach we wrote about last week, and today we bring you a Q&A with Jennifer Byrne, the last author of a new paper in PLOS ONE that describes another approach, this one designed to … Continue reading Semi-automated fact-checking for scientific papers? Here’s one method.
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 the tale of the reviewer who told authors to cite … Continue reading Weekend reads: A call for 400 retractions of papers on organ donors; “citation mania;” AAAS reassessing award for work on herbicide
Over the years, we have written about a number of the sleuths who, on their own time and often at great risks to their careers or finances, have looked for issues in the scientific literature. Here’s a sampling:
Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, would you consider a tax-deductible donation of $25, or a recurring donation of an amount of your choosing, to support it? Thanks in advance. The week at Retraction Watch featured the delisting of more than a dozen journals from one … Continue reading Weekend reads: Brazen plagiarism; why animal studies don’t hold up in humans; motherhood citation penalty
A project to identify studies doomed by problematic reagents has triggered three more retractions, bringing the total to five. Jennifer Byrne, a scientist at the University of Sydney, who developed the the idea of double-checking the nucleic acid sequences of research materials — thereby ensuring studies were testing the gene in question — told Retraction … Continue reading Project to “fact check” genetic studies leads to three more retractions. And it’s just getting started.