Author of retracted PLOS ONE paper wonders if he was punished for being honest

The stars did not align for a 2016 paper ancient astronomy in the Amazon region after the author discovered errors in his work that the journal deemed fatal to the case, although the author has objected to the retraction.

And the author feels as though he was punished for being honest. 

The article, “Solar-Aligned Pictographs at the Paleoindian Site of Painel do Pilão along the Lower Amazon River at Monte Alegre, Brazil,” was written by Christopher Davis, then at Northern Illinois University in Dekalb, and appeared in PLOS ONE. According to the abstract: Continue reading Author of retracted PLOS ONE paper wonders if he was punished for being honest

With a badly handled tweet, PLOS angers scientists after a blog disappears

Tamsin Edwards

Tamsin Edwards was stunned. And hurt.

On the afternoon of Friday, April 5, Edwards had just learned that her blog, “All Models Are Wrong,” had disappeared from the PLOS Blogs Network, where it was hosted. No warning. No communication from PLOS.

So Edwards, a climate scientist at King’s College, London, tweeted: Continue reading With a badly handled tweet, PLOS angers scientists after a blog disappears

Article claiming acupuncture on parents would treat their kids through quantum entanglement has been retracted

Last year a Beijing doctor said he was “speechless” after reading a study.

The study in question, published in Chinese Acupuncture & Moxibustion in 2017, was titled “Discussion on quantum entanglement theory and acupuncture.” Dr. Zeng, the Beijing doctor, was among a number of critics quoted in September 2018 by What’s On Weibo, which reports on social media happenings in China: Continue reading Article claiming acupuncture on parents would treat their kids through quantum entanglement has been retracted

Weekend reads: What $50 million won’t fix; was a prized research tarantula poached?; “statistical anarchy”

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 “clandestine retraction,” faked data at the University of Washington, and the retraction of yet another paper claiming a link between vaccines and behavioral issues. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: What $50 million won’t fix; was a prized research tarantula poached?; “statistical anarchy”

Former university president up to ten retractions

Akihisa Inoue

The former president of Tohoku University in Japan has just had a tenth paper retracted, because it duplicated one of his earlier works.

One of the most recent retractions by materials scientist Akihisa Inoue, late last month, was of a paper in Materials Transactions that had duplicated a now-retracted paper and was subject to an expression of concern in 2012: Continue reading Former university president up to ten retractions

Here we go again: Paper linking vaccines to cognitive damage (in sheep) retracted

In what seems like another entry in our occasional “Retraction Watch Mad Libs” series, Elsevier has withdrawn a paper that claimed to link the aluminum in vaccines to behavioral changes in sheep.

The paper, which appeared online in Pharmacological Research in November of last year, was swiftly picked up by antivaccine advocates such as Celeste McGovern, whose article about it was posted on Children’s Health Defense, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr’s, site.

But it also earned harsh criticism from Skeptical Raptor and Orac, who called it Continue reading Here we go again: Paper linking vaccines to cognitive damage (in sheep) retracted

Bartleby the author: Did you know you could abstain from a retraction notice?

The Journal of Clinical Investigation has retracted a 2011 paper involving researchers at the National Institutes of Health after the NIH concluded that some of the data were wonky.

But the retraction notice reads like a Congressional roll call, with ayes, nays and even — in something we don’t believe we’ve seen before  — an abstention. Continue reading Bartleby the author: Did you know you could abstain from a retraction notice?

Court orders publisher OMICS to pay U.S. gov’t $50 million in suit alleging “unfair and deceptive practices”

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has won a judgment against a publisher and conference organizer that has been widely viewed as predatory.

As reported in brief by Courthouse News Service, U.S. District of Nevada Judge Gloria M. Navarro ordered OMICS International to pay the U.S. government $50,130,810. Among other findings, Navarro writes: Continue reading Court orders publisher OMICS to pay U.S. gov’t $50 million in suit alleging “unfair and deceptive practices”

Former University of Washington researcher faked data, say Feds

Edward J. Fox, a former faculty member at the University of Washington in Seattle, faked data in a manuscript submitted to Nature and in an NIH grant application, according to new findings from the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI).

Fox, who initially confessed to some of the misconduct when confronted by the university, “neither admits nor denies ORI’s finding of research misconduct related to grant application R01 CA193649-01A1,” the ORI said in an announcement. However, he Continue reading Former University of Washington researcher faked data, say Feds

A “clandestine retraction” as a paper disappears from a management journal without a trace

Daniel Jung

First it was there. Now it’s gone.

In March 2018, three researchers at Atatürk University in Turkey published“Investigation Of The Critical Factors Affecting E-Government Acceptance: A Systematic Review And A Conceptual Model” at the Innovative Journal of Business and Management, where it was freely available during 2018. It has no DOI, and no citations (that I know of).

Now it is gone; the link is redirected to the journal’s general search engine. A search for the title or authors there yields no hits; neither do the Google references to the article nor resources around it. The March 2018 issue has now an unexplained hole from pages 77–84. The Google Scholar index for this article disappeared in March 2019.

What happened? Continue reading A “clandestine retraction” as a paper disappears from a management journal without a trace