Cancer researcher cleared of misconduct, inquiry finds “genuine error or honest oversight”

An investigation at the University of New South Wales in Australia has determined that a long-accused cancer researcher did not commit misconduct. The investigation did find instances when Levon Khachigian breached the code of conduct, but

Having non-replicable data may not hurt your rep, says study

Although many scientists fear putting their data to the test of replication efforts, due to the embarrassment they’d feel if their findings couldn’t be repeated, a new study suggests those fears are unfounded. The paper, published last week in PLOS ONE, found that scientists overestimate how much having non-replicable data will hurt their careers, and … Continue reading Having non-replicable data may not hurt your rep, says study

Weekend reads: What do PhDs earn?; university refuses to release data; collaboration’s dark side

This week at Retraction Watch featured a look at the huge problem of misidentified cell lines, a check-in with a company that retracted a paper as it was about to go public, and Diederik Stapel’s 58th retraction. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Weekend reads: The end of journals?; Impact Factor for sale; fake peer reviews earn funding bans

This morning, our thoughts are with the people of Paris. The week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of a paper claiming dramatically higher rates of sexual trauma among men in the military, and a look at whether gender plays a role in peer review. Also: We’re hiring. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

St. Jude investigation finds faked data in brain tumor paper

An investigation at St. Jude Children’s Hospital into “irregularities” in a figure featured in a neuroblastoma paper has concluded that the image was fabricated. The paper, published in Surgery in 2012, was retracted on Friday. Here’s the full retraction notice for “Liposome-encapsulated curcumin suppresses neuroblastoma growth through nuclear factor-kappa B inhibition:”

Is less publishing linked to more plagiarism?

Countries that publish less science appear to “borrow” more language from others than other, more scientifically prolific countries, according to a new small study. Using a novel approach of comparing a country’s total citations against its total published papers (CPP), the authors categorized 80 retractions from journals in general and internal medicine. This is a … Continue reading Is less publishing linked to more plagiarism?

Boldt’s retraction count upped to 94, co-author takes legal action to prevent 95th

We’ve found two recent retractions and an expression of concern for Joachim Boldt, former prominent anesthesiologist and currently Retraction Watch leaderboard’s 2nd place titleholder. He now has 94 retractions. One of the retracted articles contains falsified data, along with a researcher who didn’t agree to be a co-author, according to an investigation by the Justus Liebig University Giessen, where Boldt … Continue reading Boldt’s retraction count upped to 94, co-author takes legal action to prevent 95th

Weekend reads: FDA nominee authorship questions; low economics replication rates

The week at Retraction Watch featured a mysterious retraction from PLOS ONE, and a thoughtful piece by a scientist we’ve covered frequently on where we went wrong in that coverage. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Weekend reads, part 2: Criminalizing scientific fraud; Nobel Prize folly; boosting impact factor

There were so many items to choose from this week for Weekend Reads — probably because it was Peer Review Week — that we decided to split them into two posts. Here’s part 2: