Search Results for: liz wager

Why was that paper retracted? Peer-reviewed evidence that Retraction Watch isn’t crazy

Retraction Watch readers will no doubt have realized by now that we are often frustrated by the opacity of many of the retraction notices we cover. And some critics may wonder if we’re overstating that case. Well, wonder no more. In a study published online yesterday in the Journal of Medical Ethics, Liz Wager and … Continue reading Why was that paper retracted? Peer-reviewed evidence that Retraction Watch isn’t crazy

Should authors be encouraged to pick their own peer reviewers?

If you’ve ever submitted a paper, you know that many journals ask authors to suggest experts who can peer review your work. That’s understandable; after all, as science becomes more and more specialized, it becomes harder to find reviewers knowledgeable in smaller niches. Human nature being what it is, however, it would seem natural for … Continue reading Should authors be encouraged to pick their own peer reviewers?

UK government research watchdog publishes new retraction guidelines

The UK’s Research Integrity Office (UKRIO) has just published “Guidance for researchers on retractions in academic journals.” The document is an adaptation of existing guidelines by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), a UK charity. Nothing has changed, COPE chair Liz Wager told Retraction Watch. UKRIO just decided to convert COPE’s existing guidelines, targeted to … Continue reading UK government research watchdog publishes new retraction guidelines

Double negatives: Four years later, a journal restores retracted headache paper

It might not be a first – although we can’t find another example — but a mental health journal has reinstated an article it retracted four years ago. The retracted retraction notice appears in the August issue of the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, a BMJ title, and refers to a 2005 article describing … Continue reading Double negatives: Four years later, a journal restores retracted headache paper

How can universities and journals work together better on misconduct allegations?

Retractions, expressions of concern, and corrections often arise from reader critiques sent by readers, whether those readers are others in the field, sleuths, or other interested parties. In many of those cases, journals seek the input of authors’ employers, often universities. In a recent paper in Research Integrity and Peer Review, longtime scientific publishing consultant … Continue reading How can universities and journals work together better on misconduct allegations?

What should journals do when peer reviewers do not disclose potential conflicts?

Peer reviewers, like authors, are supposed to declare any potential conflicts of interest. But what happens when they don’t? Take this case: In a court transcript from Feb. 23, 2017, Bryan Hardin testified that he was a peer reviewer on a 2016 paper in Critical Reviews in Toxicology, which found that asbestos does not increase … Continue reading What should journals do when peer reviewers do not disclose potential conflicts?

Unintended consequences: How authorship guidelines destroyed a relationship

It started as a simple email exchange over authorship. But it angered one researcher so much that it ended a 20-year collaboration. In January 2017, a chemist based in Mexico had finished writing a paper describing the structure of a molecule. Sylvain Bernès, at the Instituto de Física Luis Rivera Terrazas, asked his co-author—the head … Continue reading Unintended consequences: How authorship guidelines destroyed a relationship

12 years after researcher found guilty of misconduct, journal retracts paper

In 2005, the U.S. Office of Research Integrity found an obesity researcher had engaged in scientific misconduct. More specifically, the ORI report revealed that Eric Poehlman, then based at the University of Vermont, had “falsified and fabricated” data in 10 papers. The 2005 report asked that the journals issue retractions or corrections to the papers. … Continue reading 12 years after researcher found guilty of misconduct, journal retracts paper

When misconduct occurs, how should journals and institutions work together?

When the World Conference on Research Integrity kicks off at the end of this month, one topic that will be on attendees’ minds is how journals and research institutions should collaborate when investigating the integrity of individual publications. That’s because this week, a group of stakeholders from institutions and the publishing world released draft guidelines … Continue reading When misconduct occurs, how should journals and institutions work together?

Weekend reads: The upside of predatory publishers; why no one replicates; the pain of manuscript submission

The week at Retraction Watch featured a retraction of a state senator’s paper, and an editor busted for citation boosting. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: