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:
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 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”
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 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
The week at Retraction Watch featured a predatory journal sting involving a fake disorder from Seinfeld, and a study with disturbing findings about how retracted papers are cited. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Sure, everyone knows it’s not a good idea to falsify data. But what about somewhat lesser offenses that also undermine the reproducibility of your findings, such as only publishing studies that “work,” and reporting an unexpected finding as something you had predicted from the beginning? In 2012, a survey of more than 2,000 psychologists based … Continue reading How many scientists admit to questionable research practices?
Two journals have retracted two papers by the same group within months of each other, after editors were independently tipped off that they contained duplicated figures representing different experiments. The two papers were published by PLOS ONE and The Egyptian Journal of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (EJBMB) in 2015 and 2014, respectively. According to the PLOS ONE paper’s corresponding author, last … Continue reading Author duplicated a figure in three papers; two get retracted
The week at Retraction Watch featured the case of a peer review nightmare, and a story about harassment by a would-be scientific critic. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
The week at Retraction Watch featured a lawsuit threat following criticism of a popular education program, and the new editor of PLOS ONE’s explanation of why submissions are down. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: