Ask Retraction Watch: Is it OK to cite a retracted paper?

Photo by Bilal Kamoon via flickr

From our mailbox:

I’m writing regarding a recent query from an author about citation of a retracted article. The author is currently writing up a paper where the initial investigations were at least partially inspired by a paper that has recently been retracted. The author wants to recognise the influence of that work on the new study, but also recognises that – since the paper has been retracted – it would not be appropriate simply to cite it as though it were still a published paper. This isn’t a situation we’ve come across before, and I’m not sure how best to advise the author. Is it acceptable to discuss the findings of that paper provided the text clearly mentions that the paper has since been retracted? And how should this be cited in the reference list – citation to the original paper, to the retraction notice, or not at all? As experts in this area, any guidance you could provide would be greatly appreciated.

Continue reading Ask Retraction Watch: Is it OK to cite a retracted paper?

After Elsevier knew an author faked reviews, it kept accepting his papers for more than a year

In March 2017, Christopher Blanford received an email from an editor at the Journal of Crystal Growth. Blanford had been named as a suggested reviewer for a manuscript, and the editor, Arnab Bhattacharya, wanted to verify that the Gmail account the authors provided was legitimate.

It was not.

Blanford—a senior lecturer in biomaterials at the University of Manchester, UK—thought it was an “amusing coincidence” that he was chosen as a fake reviewer, given that he has written about malpractice in academic publishing. He confirmed the Gmail account was not his, and the other two suggested reviewers told Bhattacharya, a professor at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research in Mumbai, India, the same thing.

Continue reading After Elsevier knew an author faked reviews, it kept accepting his papers for more than a year

Consultant admits to plagiarizing Air Force colonel’s paper on leadership

Thomas Mattus

A consultant has admitted to plagiarizing a U.S. Air Force officer in a paper on leadership, and says his company is now in jeopardy of losing top clients, including Fortune 100 companies.

On Tuesday, we reported allegations that Thomas Mattus, president of the project management consulting firm Successful Strategies International (SSI), plagiarized in a 2012 paper he wrote for a conference run by the Project Management Institute (PMI). The article he plagiarized, on the topic of “transformational leadership,” was written in 2001 by Col. Mark Homrig, now a section chief at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Mattus, who had not previously replied to our request for comment, has now admitted to copying Homrig’s article. He told us: Continue reading Consultant admits to plagiarizing Air Force colonel’s paper on leadership

Lead author changes co-author’s name on a paper without his permission. Why?

Here’s a rather odd case: A postdoctoral researcher says his former boss changed his name on a paper without his permission. According to the postdoc, Antonio Herrera-Merchan, his principal investigator at University of Granada insisted on the name change to distance them both from a scandal in Herrera-Merchan’s previous lab.

After publishing a paper in Oncotarget in October 2017, Herrera-Merchan’s name was changed on the paper. Now, two versions of the paper exist: an earlier version that lists Antonio Herrera-Merchan as first author, and the current version that spells his name without “Merchan.”*  

We’ve obtained an email exchange between his former boss, Pedro Medina, and Oncotarget, requesting the name change.

Medina told us Herrera-Merchan always used the name “Herrera” in his lab: Continue reading Lead author changes co-author’s name on a paper without his permission. Why?

Caught Our Notice: Unusual — journal flags paper for concerns, then updates them

Via Wikimedia

Title: Filled and peptide-modified single-walled carbon nanotubes: synthesis, characterization, and in vitro test for cancer cell targeting

What Caught Our Attention: After an expression of concern (EOC) is published in a journal, the usual procedure is to either publish a subsequent correction or retraction — or, unfortunately, leave it sit ad infinitum. But apparently, there’s another option. Continue reading Caught Our Notice: Unusual — journal flags paper for concerns, then updates them

Consultant allegedly plagiarized US Air Force officer

A business consultant allegedly plagiarized an article on leadership written by a former U.S. Air Force officer who is now a high-ranking official in the Department of Homeland Security.

Thomas Mattus, president and founder of a business training firm, submitted a paper to the Project Management Institute (PMI) Global Congress in Vancouver, Canada. The paper, on “transformational leadership,” defined the term and its relevance to the world of project management. PMI accepted “Transformational leadership for project managers” as a conference paper and posted it in 2012 to the PMI website.

But a researcher at the U.S. Naval War College alleges that Mattus plagiarized the paper from an article written in 2001 by Mark Homrig, who was a colonel in the Air Force at the time. Homrig is now a section chief at Homeland Security.

The researcher, Brenda Oppermann, told us:

Continue reading Consultant allegedly plagiarized US Air Force officer

University in Japan finds cancer researcher guilty of misconduct

A university in Japan has found a former professor guilty of falsifying and altering images in four published papers, including a 2014 paper about stem cells.

On Dec. 15, Tottori University announced the results of its misconduct investigation, in which the cancer researcher, Norimasa Miura, confessed to altering images in the four papers.

According to the report, which we translated, Miura resigned as associate professor at Tottori University a month before the investigation concluded in October of this year. Miura had already stopped receiving grant and research funding in May, one month into the six-month investigation. Continue reading University in Japan finds cancer researcher guilty of misconduct

Caught Our Notice: After ORI flags a paper by former grad student, university flags another

Via Wikimedia

Title: The L3MBTL3 Methyl-Lysine Reader Domain Functions As a Dimer

What Caught Our Attention: Six months ago, the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) determined that former graduate student Brandi Baughman had doctored 11 figures in a PLOS ONE article, which was retracted shortly after.  The PLOS ONE paper listed two affiliations for Baughman — the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (UNC); now UNC has triggered a second retraction of a paper co-authored by Baughman, also due to research misconduct. Although the ORI notice makes no mention of this additional paper, the agency recently took a “targeted approach” by not issuing comprehensive findings of misconduct for one researcher, in order to conserve resources. Of course, sometimes universities make findings that don’t meet the ORI’s bar, too. Continue reading Caught Our Notice: After ORI flags a paper by former grad student, university flags another

Weekend Reads: A plagiarism fighter who plagiarizes; too much ado about reproducibility?; how scientists should be judged

Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, would you consider a year-end tax-deductible donation to support it? 

The week at Retraction Watch featured an image so nice, it was used eight times, a co-author who forgot he’d used a figure elsewhere, and the 19th retraction for a researcher who tried to sue a PubPeer commenter. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend Reads: A plagiarism fighter who plagiarizes; too much ado about reproducibility?; how scientists should be judged

The 2017 Retraction Watch Year in Review (hint: Our database is nearly done)

One journal broke a retractions record by pulling more than 100 papers in one day for faked reviews, a Harvard graduate student obtained a restraining order against his boss after being forced to undergo a psychiatric exam, and a well-known food scientist at Cornell faced heavy criticism about his research.

And that’s just some of what we reported in the first few months of 2017.

This year, our team worked hard this year to dig deeper into retractions and hold publishers and institutions accountable, while filing more public records requests (including investigation reports, which journals have noticed), and exploring larger stories affecting academic publishing.

But our biggest accomplishment this year was working on our database — now close to complete (thanks to the hard work of more than a dozen graduate students, librarians, and others), it includes just shy of 16,000 retractions.

Here’s a sampling of what else we worked on this year:

Continue reading The 2017 Retraction Watch Year in Review (hint: Our database is nearly done)