Search Results for: casadevall

Why retraction shouldn’t always be the end of the story

When researchers raised concerns about a 2009 Science paper regarding a new way to screen for enzymatic activity, the lead author’s institution launched an investigation. The paper was ultimately retracted in 2010, citing “errors and omissions.” It would seem from this example that the publishing process worked, and science’s ability to self-correct cleaned up the record. … Continue reading Why retraction shouldn’t always be the end of the story

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

Weekend reads: Yelp for journals; where do the postdocs go?; scientific papers’ hidden jokes

This week at Retraction Watch featured two Office of Research Integrity findings, and retractions in the Voinnet and Hanna cases. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

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