Search Results for: "plos one"

Why did it take a journal two years to retract a paper after a misconduct finding?

A 2014 paper containing data manipulated by a former graduate student has finally been retracted, two years after the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) published its findings.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?

Weekend reads: The ‘Journal Grand Master,’ what drives online attention to studies; a song of replication

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:

“An evolving and inconsistent tale:” Biochemist barred from federal grants for five years

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

NIH researcher doctored 11 figures in 2016 paper, says ORI

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

Weekend reads: Science’s citation problem; researcher rehab; a strange new journal

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:

Weekend reads: A demand for a CRISPR paper retraction; a weak data-sharing policy; can we trust journals?

The week at Retraction Watch featured a study suggesting that 2% of studies in eight medical journals contained suspect data, and the announcement of a retraction on a professor’s blog. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Weekend reads: A hoax involving a “conceptual penis;” fake reagents; plagiarism irony

The week at Retraction Watch featured a survey of researchers in China with an alarming result, and asked whether philosophy has a plagiarism problem. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

PLOS upgrades flag on controversial PACE chronic fatigue syndrome trial; authors “surprised”

PLOS ONE has issued an expression of concern after the authors of a controversial study about chronic fatigue syndrome declined to share some of their data. In an unusual move, the journal included the authors’ response to the expression of concern (EOC), in which they strongly argue against the notice, and “do not accept that it … Continue reading PLOS upgrades flag on controversial PACE chronic fatigue syndrome trial; authors “surprised”

Fired Pfizer cancer researcher loses final two of five papers pegged for retraction

PLOS ONE has retracted the last of five papers by a former employee of Pfizer, who the company fired after determining she had duplicated data. After its investigation, Pfizer asked journals to retract five papers co-authored by Min-Jean Yin. Last week, PLOS ONE retracted the final two remaining papers. Both notices cite image duplications; Yin contacted the … Continue reading Fired Pfizer cancer researcher loses final two of five papers pegged for retraction

Why do researchers commit misconduct? A new preprint offers some clues

“Why Do Scientists Fabricate And Falsify Data?” That’s the start of the title of a new preprint posted on bioRxiv this week by researchers whose names Retraction Watch readers will likely find familiar. Daniele Fanelli, Rodrigo Costas, Ferric Fang (a member of the board of directors of our parent non-profit organization), Arturo Casadevall, and Elisabeth … Continue reading Why do researchers commit misconduct? A new preprint offers some clues