Last year, Boris Ratnikov was reading a paper and saw a familiar image. He quickly realized: The image was from a 2012 paper he’d written, but wasn’t cited. The 2016 Cell Metabolism paper he was reading had copied a figure from his 2012 PLOS ONE paper without referencing it. In September 2016, Ratnikov, who is … Continue reading When is a citation not enough?
Pfizer has discovered two additional papers that merit retraction from the lab of a former employee. One of the papers, published in Clinical Cancer Research, was retracted earlier this month. Last year, Pfizer requested retractions of five papers from the lab of breast cancer researcher Min-Jean Yin, who was fired after an investigation revealed image duplication. … Continue reading Case closed? Fired Pfizer researcher slated for seven retractions
The week at Retraction Watch featured the revocation of a PhD, a questionable way to boost university rankings, and a look at what editors should do when a researcher known to have committed misconduct submits a new manuscript. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Three years after an investigation revealed a 2013 paper was based on fraudulent data, a journal has finally retracted it. The paper, published in Journal of Hazardous Materials, was one of seven articles by a team at the Institute of Microbial Technology (IMTECH) in Chandigarh, India that contain fabricated data, according to an investigation by … Continue reading The three-year delay: Journal finally retracts paper based on made-up data
The author of a 2016 paper describing a potentially invaluable lab tool has retracted it, following heavy criticism from outside groups that could not reproduce the findings. The paper had already been tagged with an Expression of Concern by the journal, Nature Biotechnology, which included data from multiple groups casting doubt on the original findings. Although … Continue reading “The data have spoken:” Controversial NgAgo gene editing study retracted
A 2014 paper containing data manipulated by a former graduate student has finally been retracted, two years after the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) published its findings. In August 2015, the ORI published a report that Peter Littlefield, who was working on his PhD at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), had committed … Continue reading Why did it take a journal two years to retract a paper after a misconduct finding?
The week at Retraction Watch featured a story of unintended consequences and a broken relationship, and a retraction for a paper that had just about everything wrong with it. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
In 2013, Frank Sauer blamed “visual distortion” for problems with the images in his papers and grant applications. That explanation gave way to the production in 2016 of a mysterious and ominous letter from an unnamed researcher claiming that they’d sabotaged Sauer’s work in a plot of revenge. Soon after, Sauer was claiming that a … Continue reading “An evolving and inconsistent tale:” Biochemist barred from federal grants for five years
A former Research Training Awardee at the National Institutes of Health “falsified and/or fabricated data” in 11 figures in a 2016 paper, according to the U.S. Office of Research Integrity. This is the first finding of misconduct issued this year by the ORI. According to the finding, published in the Federal Register, Brandi M. Baughman — formerly … Continue reading NIH researcher doctored 11 figures in 2016 paper, says ORI
The week at Retraction Watch featured the resignation of a researcher found to have fudged data in a study of Crossfit, and allegations of bullying by a scientist who wouldn’t let a trainee publish a paper. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: