A few years ago, Richard Miller of the University of Michigan had a serious dilemma: He discovered a former researcher in his lab was doing research somewhere else. Normally, that would be fine — except this research had admitted to committing misconduct in Miller’s lab.
Should he tell the researcher’s new employer? Continue reading A former employee admitted to scientific misconduct. His new institution likely doesn’t know. What should you do?
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 three-part series about what happened when a team tried to publish a replication attempt in a Nature journal, the story of how an author hoodwinked a journal with a fake name, and one former editor’s frustration with a publication ethics group. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Vaccine-neurological damage paper retracted under protest; buy a PhD thesis for $10,000; retraction by press release?
We finally have some clarity on the case of the erroneous retraction over at the Annals of Surgical Oncology.
Last week, we reported that the journal, and its publisher, Springer Nature, were having some trouble with a retracted presentation from a 2017 cancer meeting. Turns out, the issue involved crossed wires for similar articles in the journal by the same trio of researchers.
Elizabeth Hawkins, a spokeswoman for Springer Nature, told us:
Continue reading The mystery of the mistaken retraction is solved — sort of
Which journals will publish replications? In the first post in this series, Mante Nieuwland, of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, described a replication attempt of a study in Nature Neuroscience that he and his colleagues carried out. Yesterday, he shared the story of their first submission to the journal. In the final installment today, he explains why the paper was eventually published in another journal. Continue reading One team’s struggle to publish a replication attempt, part 3
A prominent (yet controversial) journalist in Australia has admitted to duplicating three images that were part of her PhD thesis — a practice outside experts agreed was acceptable, if not ideal, at the time, according to a report released today.
As part of an inquiry, the University of Adelaide convened an expert panel to investigate 17 allegations of duplication and/or manipulation in Maryanne Demasi’s 2004 thesis. Duplication is a common reason for retractions, such as when researchers use the same image to depict the results of different experiments.
After earning her PhD in rheumatology, Demasi became a journalist who got headlines for more than just her reporting. In 2013, she produced a controversial series about cholesterol and fat (which suggested they have been unfairly villainized, and which cast doubt on cholesterol-lowering drugs known as statins). A few years later, Demasi was fired from the science program Catalyst, after it aired an episode alleging wi-fi could cause brain tumors.
Regarding the allegations of misconduct in Demasi’s thesis, the originals of the images in question were long gone, so in 14 instances, an expert concluded it was not possible to conclude whether or not duplication had occurred. But in the remaining three instances, Demasi admitted she had “duplicated or probably duplicated” the images:
Continue reading Controversial Australian science journalist admits to duplication in her PhD thesis
The author of an article that claimed to link HPV vaccines to a higher rate of cervical cancer — the disease the vaccine is designed to prevent — deceived the journal about his real identity, according to the journal.
But the journal will leave the paper intact, simply adding a line about the author to the paper and publishing an editorial about the incident.
The subterfuge — in which the author claimed an affiliation with the Karolinska Institutet — was noted earlier this week by the Swedish medical newspaper Läkartidningen. After that, the journal added this to the author’s information on the article: Continue reading Author of a study on HPV vaccines hoodwinked journal with a fake name
Do journals walk the walk when it comes to publishing replications? In the first installment in this series of guest posts, Mante Nieuwland, of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, described a replication attempt of a study in Nature Neuroscience that he and his colleagues carried out. Today, he shares the story of their first submission to the journal. Continue reading An attempt to publish a replication attempt in a Nature journal, part 2
Over the past few years, Nature has published editorials extolling the virtues of replication, concluding in one that “We welcome, and will be glad to help disseminate, results that explore the validity of key publications, including our own.” Mante Nieuwland, of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, and colleagues were encouraged by that message, and submitted one such replication attempt to Nature Neuroscience. In a three-part guest post, Nieuwland will describe what happened when they did, and discusses whether reality lives up to the rhetoric. Here’s part one: Continue reading Nature says it wants to publish replication attempts. So what happened when a group of authors submitted one to Nature Neuroscience?
When the former editor of a public health journal didn’t get a straight answer about why the journal retracted his paper that was critical of corporate-sponsored research, he brought his concerns to an organization dedicated to promoting integrity in academic publishing. He wanted the group to help resolve the impasse he’d reached with the publisher, but was sorely disappointed.
David Egilman, the former editor of the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, had been seeking answers about the paper for a year. In November, the journal’s editorial board resigned, in protest of the “apparent new direction that the journal appears to be moving towards.” They objected to the “unilateral withdraw[al]” of Egilman’s paper, with little explanation, the delay in publishing other papers that had been accepted under Egilman’s leadership, and the decision to appoint a new editor with industry ties.
Amidst all that upheaval at the journal, Egilman still wasn’t getting the answers he wanted about why his paper was withdrawn. So he brought his concerns to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
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 boycott by thousands of researchers of a new Nature journal, the birth of a new “data thug,” and the retraction of the wrong paper by a publisher. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Heart drug scandal widens; sexual harassment allegations force editor’s resignation; a dying scientist’s rogue vaccine trial