The week at Retraction Watch featured the appeal of a modern-day retraction, and a look at whether a retraction by a Nobel Prize winner should be retracted 50 years later. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
A 2011 letter to Nature from Harvard researchers received its second correction today, this time after discovering the researchers conducted experiments in which mice may have “experienced more pain and suffering than originally allowed for.” That quote comes from an accompanying editorial in the journal, a rare move for a correction to a 2011 letter. … Continue reading Animal welfare breach prompts Nature correction
Cell Press is looking into anonymous allegations that a pair of influential papers on gene activation in yeast may contain more than two dozen instances of image manipulation, according to a spokesperson for the journal. The accusations first appeared in March on PubPeer, where they triggered a small avalanche of comments, including one asserting “unambiguous … Continue reading Cell Press investigating possible image manipulation in influential yeast genetics paper
The week at Retraction Watch featured a lawsuit over the authorship of a paper, and a look at when exactly a study should be retracted. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
The volunteer members of the Board of Directors of The Center For Scientific Integrity (CSI) are deeply knowledgeable about scientific publishing, scientific integrity, and other issues relevant to the missions of Retraction Watch and CSI. They offer CSI management and staff strategic advice, feedback on specific proposals, and guidance on our work. The management and … Continue reading Board of Directors
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:
A panel reviewing The BMJ‘s handling of two controversial statin papers said the journal didn’t err when it corrected, rather than retracted, the articles. The articles — a research paper and a commentary — suggested that use of statins in people at low risk for cardiovascular disease could be doing far more harm than good. Both … Continue reading Panel says BMJ was right to not retract two disputed statin papers
Another busy week at Retraction Watch, with Ivan in Seoul speaking on research integrity at the Korean Medical Association conference. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
An Australian university has put a hold on trials of an experimental drug for skin cancer whose main developer has been dogged by charges of research misconduct for several years. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation is reporting that the University of New South Wales has suspended trials of the drug, DZ13, while it investigates the work … Continue reading Aussie university halts trials of skin cancer drug whose developer has four retractions
Yesterday, we brought you news of a story in Belgium involving questions about whether a woman who gave birth following an ovarian transplant could have become pregnant without the transplant. The case, which led to a university investigation but no retraction, included allegations of theft and arson. This morning, we were made aware of a … Continue reading Ovarian transplant update: Authors of 2004 live-birth follow-up letter ask Lancet to retract it