Retraction Watch Database User Guide Appendix B: Reasons

Reason Description Author Unresponsive The corresponding author(s) did not respond to journal/publisher requests for response, clarification, etc., about one or more concerns/issues with a publication. RW does not apply this reason when the lack of response is only to the language or posting of a notice of correction/EOC/retraction.ion after prior contact by Journal, Publisher or … Continue reading Retraction Watch Database User Guide Appendix B: Reasons

So, was it plagiarism? Journal retracts three papers over “citation and attribution errors”

When several recent submissions raised a red flag, a pediatrics journal decided to investigate. The journal, Pediatrics in Review, discovered “citation and attribution errors” in three case studies, which the journal has now retracted.   Luann Zanzola, the managing editor of the journal, explained that the editors caught the errors when they scanned the three … Continue reading So, was it plagiarism? Journal retracts three papers over “citation and attribution errors”

Does the philosophy literature have a plagiarism problem?

Philosopher Michael Dougherty doesn’t take plagiarism sitting down. Over the years, the researcher at Ohio Dominican University has tipped us off to numerous instances of plagiarism he’s spotted. And it turns out, he’s done the same thing for publishers, as well. In a new paper in Metaphilosophy, Dougherty describes his experience contacting publishers over an … Continue reading Does the philosophy literature have a plagiarism problem?

Welcome to the Journal of Alternative Facts. They’re the greatest! And winning!

Ever since Kellyanne Conway, counselor to U.S. President Donald Trump, used the term “alternative facts” on Meet The Press earlier this month, the term — an awful euphemism for falsehoods, as many have pointed out — has become a meme. And like every new field, alternative facts needs its own journal. Enter the Twitter feed for the … Continue reading Welcome to the Journal of Alternative Facts. They’re the greatest! And winning!

Weekend reads: Data sharing fees block access; Machiavellianism and gossip in science; “power pose” redux

The week at Retraction Watch featured a look at where retractions for fake peer review come from, and an eyebrow-raising plan that has a journal charging would-be whistleblowers a fee. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Lesson learned: “What makes a journal great?” essay pulled for plagiarism

In 2011, a Nigerian journal published an essay entitled “What Makes a Journal Great” by its newly appointed editor, outlining his editorial philosophy — a philosophy that apparently includes lifting text from another source. That’s right — the Nigerian Medical Journal is now retracting the essay by Francis A. Uba, a surgeon who currently is provost of the … Continue reading Lesson learned: “What makes a journal great?” essay pulled for plagiarism

Weekend reads: “Unfeasibly prolific authors;” why your manuscript will be rejected; is science broken?

The week at Retraction Watch featured revelations of yet more fake peer reviews, bringing the retraction total to 250. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

What should an ideal retraction notice look like?

Have you seen our “unhelpful retraction notices” category, a motley collection of vague, misleading, and even information-free entries? We’d like to make it obsolete, and we need our readers’ help. Here’s what we mean: Next month, Ivan will be traveling to Rio to take part in the World Conference on Research Integrity. One of his … Continue reading What should an ideal retraction notice look like?

Biofuels paper burned by “improper citation methods” – ie, plagiarism

Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology (CREST) has retracted a paper on biofuels for “improper citation methods.” Given the journal’s track record, we’re guessing this is just another euphemism for plagiarism. (Also because the retraction notice flags a “breach of warranties made by the authors with respect to originality.”) In 2013, CREST retracted two papers … Continue reading Biofuels paper burned by “improper citation methods” – ie, plagiarism

Weekend reads: Where to submit your next paper, NIH proposes “emeritus” award, research dollars wasted

This week at Retraction Watch featured the debut of our new editor, and a unicorn. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: