The week at Retraction Watch featured revelations of fraud in more than $100 million in government research, and swift findings in a much-discussed case. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
This week at Retraction Watch featured what may be a record for plagiarism, a paper retracted because the device researchers claimed to use hadn’t arrive in the institution yet, and a technical glitch, which meant you may have missed some of our posts. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
The week at Retraction Watch featured controversy over an economics paper, and a report of a researcher who faked more than 70 experiments. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Elisabeth Bik, a microbiologist at Stanford, has for years been a behind-the-scenes force in scientific integrity, anonymously submitting reports on plagiarism and image duplication to journal editors. Now, she’s ready to come out of the shadows. With the help of two editors at microbiology journals, she has conducted a massive study looking for image duplication … Continue reading One in 25 papers contains inappropriately duplicated images, screen finds
Physicists have retracted a highly cited paper from Nature on the behavior of electrons at the center of the Earth after other researchers could not reproduce their findings. The 2015 paper earned coverage in Science News and Live Science, where co-author Ronald Cohen explained: There was a big problem in how you generate a magnetic field, and now, because of our … Continue reading Physicists retract Nature paper on Earth’s core after findings aren’t reproducible
There’s a new paper about retractions, and it’s chock-full of the kind of data that we love to geek out on. Enjoy. The new paper, “A Multi-dimensional Investigation of the Effects of Publication Retraction on Scholarly Impact,” appears on the preprint server arXiv — meaning it has yet to be peer-reviewed — and is co-authored … Continue reading Ready to geek out on retraction data? Read this new preprint
The week at Retraction Watch featured a case of a disappearing journal, lots of bad news for Olivier Voinnet, and advice on what to do when you make a mistake. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
This week at Retraction Watch featured a literally bullshit excuse for fake data, a new record for time from publication to retraction, and news of an upcoming retraction from Science. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
The week at Retraction Watch featured our annual roundup of the year’s top retractions for The Scientist, a retraction from Science, and claims about a book Aristotle never wrote. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Science has retracted an August paper on an interesting electric current researchers observed in a kind of material called a topological insulator. Well, a current the researchers — based at Stanford and MIT — thought they had observed. A magnetic field with particular attributes reported in the paper seemed to provide evidence of the current. But the researchers soon discovered that … Continue reading Science retracts physics paper after magnetic field wasn’t what it seemed