The week at Retraction Watch featured two high-profile resignations linked to the Paolo Macchiarini case, as well as a Q&A with a long-frustrated — and now vindicated — whistleblower. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Remember when we recently found PLOS ONE had published two papers with “substantial overlap” from two different groups, that were edited around the same time? Well, we have discovered another similarly perplexing case of plagiarism in two studies published only months apart. But in this instance, we have a possible explanation for how two groups of … Continue reading Another case of plagiarism in papers published only months apart
An analysis of more than 50,000 papers submitted to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) shows that those published using its “contributed track” — in which academy members can fast-track their own papers by coordinating the peer-review process themselves — have been cited less often than regular submissions, but that gap is shrinking. … Continue reading Fast-tracked PNAS papers are cited less often — but gap is shrinking
This week at Retraction Watch featured a literally bullshit excuse for fake data, a new record for time from publication to retraction, and news of an upcoming retraction from Science. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
The Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences has retracted a paper after concerns surfaced from a researcher who claims to have supervised the research but was not listed as a co-author. The first author completed the research — which explored the use of epigenetic alterations as potential early signs of cancer — as part of her … Continue reading Cancer study pulled when published without supervisor’s consent
John Shannon may be a mere undergrad at Hillsdale College in Michigan, but he knows enough about history to be surprised that Aristotle had written an entire book about economics that Shannon had never heard of. That curiosity led to the discovery that a highly cited paper about pricing in cancer drugs was missing a reference to a … Continue reading Oh no he didn’t! Misattributed Aristotle work leads to correction in highly cited cancer paper
A study characterizing subtypes of the bacteria that cause bacterial meningitis is being retracted after the authors didn’t have permission to publish the data, even though the data itself remain available in a public database. The paper, in PLOS ONE, relied on a laboratory collection of patient samples. In October, the authors retracted it because … Continue reading Authors retract meningitis paper over permission — but data are in a public database
PLOS ONE has quickly corrected an October analysis of what children in Malaysia eat for breakfast, after the study neglected to note it benefited from mistakenly noted an unrestricted research grant from cereal companies supported author salaries. The grant supported the salaries of research assistants, according to the correction note. Per the authors’ request, the journal has noted … Continue reading Breakfast study mischaracterized funding by cereal group
When a 2008 paper proposed that athletes be kept out of play for four weeks following a concussion, three doctors wrote in to say that the recommendations were “irrelevant and ill advised.” One thing the trio failed to disclose, however, was their own financial ties to the National Football League. With the release of the … Continue reading Critics of 2008 concussion study failed to note NFL ties
The week at Retraction Watch featured more installments in the seemingly never-ending story of fake peer reviews. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: