Search Results for: casadevall

Weekend reads: Elsevier mutiny; babies as co-authors; what to do after rejection

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

Weekend reads: What really happened in that lab?; best excuses for falsifying data and rejecting grants

The week at Retraction Watch featured the correction of a widely covered study claiming to find evidence of the plague and anthrax on New York City subways, and rulings against scientists suing Harvard, a journal, and the CBC. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Pressure to publish not to blame for misconduct, says new study

A new study suggests that much of what we think about misconduct — including the idea that it is linked to the unrelenting pressure on scientists to publish high-profile papers — is incorrect. In a new paper out today in PLOS ONE [see update at end of post], Daniele Fanelli, Rodrigo Costas, and Vincent Larivière performed a retrospective analysis of … Continue reading Pressure to publish not to blame for misconduct, says new study

Are retractions more frequent in stem cell research?

There are a number of fields that seem to punch above their weight on Retraction Watch: Anesthesiology, home to the world record holder (and runner-up), and psychology, home to Diederik Stapel and others. But the red-hot field of stem cell research is another that makes frequent appearances, last year’s STAP controversy being particularly prominent. There’s … Continue reading Are retractions more frequent in stem cell research?

Retraction Watch is growing, thanks to a $400,000 grant from the MacArthur Foundation

Dear Retraction Watch readers, we have some exciting news to share. After more than four years, 2,000 posts, and incredible responses from the scientific community, we are thrilled to announce that The Center For Scientific Integrity, a not-for-profit corporation we’ve established, has been awarded a $400,000 grant from the MacArthur Foundation to expand the work … Continue reading Retraction Watch is growing, thanks to a $400,000 grant from the MacArthur Foundation

“Research misconduct accounts for a small percentage of total funding”: Study

How much money does scientific fraud waste? That’s an important question, with an answer that may help determine how much attention some people pay to research misconduct. But it’s one that hasn’t been rigorously addressed. Seeking some clarity,  Andrew Stern, Arturo Casadevall, Grant Steen, and Ferric Fang looked at cases in which the Office of … Continue reading “Research misconduct accounts for a small percentage of total funding”: Study

Weekend reads: Scientific fraudster given royal honor; the Retraction Watch theme song!

Another busy week at Retraction Watch, with Ivan speaking in Vienna, at a PhD student retreat in nearby Zwettl, and in London. The retreat gave rise to “We Will Retract You,” which may just become the Retraction Watch theme song. Watch here. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

“Barriers to retraction may impede correction of the literature:” New study

One of the complaints we often hear about the self-correcting nature of science is that authors and editors seem very reluctant to retract papers with obvious fatal flaws. Indeed, it seems fairly clear that the number of papers retracted is smaller than the number of those that should be. To try to get a sense … Continue reading “Barriers to retraction may impede correction of the literature:” New study

Cell, Nature, Science boycott: What was Randy Schekman’s tenure at PNAS like?

By now, Retraction Watch readers may have heard about new Nobel laureate Randy Schekman’s pledge to boycott Cell, Nature, and Science — sometimes referred to the “glamour journals” — because they damage and distort science. Schekman has used the bully pulpit of the Nobels to spark a conversation that science dearly needs to have about … Continue reading Cell, Nature, Science boycott: What was Randy Schekman’s tenure at PNAS like?