The week at Retraction Watch featured a number of legal cases by scientists trying to suppress criticism about their work. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
This week at Retraction Watch featured a change of heart by a journal, and a look at Nature’s addition of double-blind peer review. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
This week at Retraction Watch, an explosives paper burned up, and we found that we’re cited in a $8 million lawsuit. Here’s what’s happening elsewhere:
This week at Retraction Watch featured the debut of our new editor, and a unicorn. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
As Retraction Watch readers know, public health officials are concerned about a U.S. measles outbreak. As The New York Times notes: The United States has already had more cases of measles in the first month of 2015 than the number that is typically diagnosed in a full year. This follows a year in which the number of … Continue reading Fraud’s long tail: Measles outbreak shows why it’s important to look downstream of retractions
We’re pleased to share this guest post from Leonid Schneider, a cell biologist, science journalist and a prolific cartoonist whose work graces our Twitter profile and Facebook page. In it, Schneider argues for a new way to ensure accountability for publicly funded research. It has become clear that scientific dishonesty is rarely sanctioned. In the worst case scenario, manipulated or … Continue reading What if universities had to agree to refund grants whenever there was a retraction?
Rolling Stone has published an editor’s note that calls into question their November 19 story, “A Rape on Campus,” which details a UVA student’s alleged gang rape at a fraternity party and her subsequent struggle to get justice from the school. Shortly after publication, the magazine was criticized for not seeking a statement from the … Continue reading Is Rolling Stone retracting its story on UVA sexual assault?
The week at Retraction Watch kicked off with news of the European Science Foundation threatening to sue a scientist for calling a review process “flawed.” Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
The recent retraction of a paper in Science Translational Medicine reporting “one of the biggest things to happen” in narcolepsy research has claimed a bystander: A letter that commented on the no-longer-landmark article. The authors of the letter are with GlaxoSmithKline’s vaccine division. Here’s the new notice:
The week at Retraction Watch featured revelations about the backstory of an expression of concern, and Office of Research Integrity findings in a case that had its beginnings in Retraction Watch comments. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: