The week at Retraction Watch featured a peer review nightmare come true, and a look at why publishing negative findings is hard. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
The media has been abuzz in the last few weeks with developments in the ongoing story about “super surgeon” Paolo Macchiarini. We’ve been covering the allegations against him for years (and invited him to publish a guest post on our site). Below, we present a timeline of recent events, to keep you abreast of what we know … Continue reading Reading about embattled trachea surgeon Paolo Macchiarini? Here’s what you need to know
If audits work for the Internal Revenue Service, could they also work for science? We’re pleased to present a guest post from Viraj Mane, a life sciences commercialization manager in Toronto, and Amy Lossie at the National Institutes of Health, who have a unique proposal for how to improve the quality of papers: Random audits of … Continue reading Do scientists need audits?
Last week, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors proposed requiring authors to share deidentified patient data underlying the published results of clinical trials within six months of publication. The proposal has earned much support but also some concerns – for example that other scientists might poach the findings, acting as the New England Journal of … Continue reading Sharing data is a good thing. But we need to consider the costs.
The week at Retraction Watch featured a brewing case over GMO research, a 10-reason retraction. and a retraction and apology from the CBC. Before we get to this week’s reads from elsewhere, we’re happy to announce that we’re launching a daily email newsletter that will include posts from the last 24 hours, as well as links to … Continue reading Weekend reads: “Research parasites;” CRISPR controversy; access to PACE data denied
Ever wondered which retracted papers had the biggest impact on their fields? We’ve compiled a list of the 10 most highly cited retracted papers. Note that many papers — including the #1 most cited paper — received more citations after they were retracted, which research has shown is an ongoing problem. Readers will see some familiar entries, such … Continue reading Here are the top 10 most highly cited retracted papers, ranked
Ever curious which retracted papers have been most cited by other scientists? Below, we present the list of the 10 most highly cited retractions as of July 3, 2024. Readers will see some familiar entries, such as the infamous Lancet paper by Andrew Wakefield that originally suggested a link between autism and childhood vaccines. You’ll … Continue reading Top 10 most highly cited retracted papers
After a request for the original data was denied, PLOS ONE editors have flagged a 2012 sub analysis of a controversial clinical trial on chronic fatigue syndrome with an editor’s note. The editor’s note — which reads like an Expression of Concern — reiterates the journal’s policy that authors make data and materials available upon request, and notes that … Continue reading PLOS ONE issues editor’s note over controversial chronic fatigue syndrome research
An investigation at the University of New South Wales in Australia has determined that a long-accused cancer researcher did not commit misconduct. The investigation did find instances when Levon Khachigian breached the code of conduct, but
We’re presenting a Q&A session with Peter Wilmshurst, now a part-time consultant cardiologist who has spent decades embroiled in misconduct investigations as a whistleblower. Retraction Watch: A UK judge recently upheld two findings of dishonesty by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service against Andrew Dowson, director of headache services at King’s College Hospital and your former … Continue reading My life as a whistleblower: Q&A with Peter Wilmshurst