Sometimes, the path to correcting the scientific record takes a few turns. In the case of a paper about a new cancer compound, authorship issues led to a correction and, ultimately, a retraction — along with a double-back to retract the earlier correction. We reported on the first part of the story back in January: … Continue reading When a paper is retracted, so is its previous correction–sometimes
This week’s Weekend Reads, which appears below, was preempted yesterday by the news that the Office of Research Integrity had issued a finding of misconduct in the long-running case of Anil Potti. The week also featured news about a child psychiatry trial halted for unexplained reasons, and saw the launch of our new weekly column … Continue reading Weekend reads: Elsevier mutiny; babies as co-authors; what to do after rejection
An open-access journal with a speedy peer review process has been having some issues with a retracted article on the biology of sex addiction. Here’s the simple timeline of events: “Hypersexuality Addiction and Withdrawal: Phenomenology, Neurogenetics and Epigenetics,” a review article, was published by Cureus in July, following a two-day peer review. In the weeks that followed, the paper received a … Continue reading Sex addiction article retracted, republished
Authors have retracted a highly cited Nature letter that purported to discover a much sought-after, stable light source from quantum dots, after they realized the light was actually coming from another source: the glass the dots were affixed to. When the paper “Non-blinking semiconductor nanocrystals” was published in 2009, it received some media coverage, such … Continue reading Authors retract highly cited Nature quantum dot letter after discovering error
The week at Retraction Watch featured a mysterious retraction from PLOS ONE, and a thoughtful piece by a scientist we’ve covered frequently on where we went wrong in that coverage. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
The week at Retraction Watch featured the appeal of a modern-day retraction, and a look at whether a retraction by a Nobel Prize winner should be retracted 50 years later. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
The week at Retraction Watch featured a call for the retraction of a paper in NEJM, and a withdrawal of a paper because authors couldn’t pay the page charges. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
The week at Retraction Watch featured the results of a massive replication study, yet another retraction for Diederik Stapel, and a messy situation at PLOS. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Journals have retracted three out of the four papers flagged by the Office of Research Integrity during its investigation of a University of Oregon neuroscience student, David Anderson. Last month, when we first reported on the case, Anderson told us that he “made an error in judgment,” and took “full responsibility.” Two of the retraction notes say that Anderson … Continue reading Three retractions for Oregon neuroscience student investigated by ORI
A 2002 paper that investigates a kind of equation used to describe physical systems has been “has been detected to be a case of plagiarism.” Here’s the abstract of the Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics (Zeitschrift für angewandte Mathematik und Physik) article, “Some blow-up results for a generalized Ginzburg-Landau equation,” We investigate the blow-up of the solution to … Continue reading Thirteen-year-old mathematics paper retracted for plagiarism