Recently, we reported that social psychologist and renowned data faker Diederik Stapel had found himself a new gig supporting research at a vocational university in the Netherlands — but it appears that was short-lived.
According to multiple news reports, NHTV Breda will not be employing Stapel, after all.
Here’s our Google translate of a portion from De Telegraaf: Continue reading No academic post for fraudster Diederik Stapel, after all
By all accounts, science is facing a crisis: Too many preclinical studies aren’t reproducible, leading to wasted time and effort by researchers around the world. Today in Cell Metabolism, Daniel Drucker at the Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute of Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto details numerous ways to make this early research more robust. His most important advice: more transparent reporting of all results (not just the positive findings), along with quantifying, reporting, tracking, and rewarding reproducibility, for both scientists and journals and universities/research institutes.
Retraction Watch: Which of your recommendations will researchers most object to, and why? Continue reading How can we improve preclinical research? Advice from a diabetes researcher
Reposting this as our email alerts seem to be down again. Read full post here.
John Ioannidis, a professor at Stanford University and one of the most highly cited researchers in the world, has come up with some startling figures about meta-analyses. His new paper, published today in Milbank Quarterly (accompanied by this commentary), suggests that the number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in literature have each increased by more than 2500% since 1991. We asked Ioannidis — who is perhaps most well known for his 2005 paper “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False” (and was featured in a previous Retraction Watch Q&A article) — why such a massive boost these publication types in scholarly literature is potentially harmful.
Retraction Watch: You say that the numbers of systematic reviews and meta-analyses have reached “epidemic proportions,” and that there is currently a “massive production of unnecessary, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses.” Indeed, you note the number of each has risen more than 2500% since 1991, often with more than 20 meta-analyses on the same topic. Why the massive increase, and why is it a problem? Continue reading We have an epidemic of deeply flawed meta-analyses, says John Ioannidis
Paolo Macchiarini — once a world-renowned surgeon for creating tracheas from cadavers and patients’ own stem cells – has been dogged for years by accusations of misconduct. Officials at his institution, Karolinska Institute, initially cleared him of many charges, but that all changed earlier this year, when Swedish Television (SVT) aired a series of documentaries about Macchiarini and his work. The series alleged, in part, that he operated on patients in Russia whose conditions were not life-threatening enough to warrant such a risky procedure. Such serious accusations caused a media storm, and prompted officials to take a second look at Macchiarini’s work. KI dismissed Macchiarini, and many others have resigned, including KI’s vice chancellor. Recently, two new reports critiqued KI’s role in the case, and Sweden’s Central Ethical Review Board found Macchiarini guilty of misconduct in a 2014 paper. We spoke with SVT producers Bosse Lindquist and Johannes Hallbom via email about the fallout from their series.
Retraction Watch: Your documentary series has caused quite a storm: A series of resignations and renewed investigations have followed. Are you surprised by the reaction? Continue reading Meet the filmmakers who cracked open the case against star surgeon Macchiarini
A Copenhagen court has cleared neuroscientist Milena Penkowa of the most serious charges against her after she appealed a 2015 verdict that she had faked data.
According to the CPH Post, the Eastern High Court in Copenhagen dismissed the case. Although the court acknowledged she had committed fraud, it declared it was not “serious forgery.”
On Facebook, Penkowa posted a message (according to the Facebook translation): Continue reading Danish court dismisses charges against neuroscientist in appeal of fraud verdict
How important is it to include a cover letter with a manuscript submission?
It seems that opinions differ. A 2013 article in Science Careers asked if it was a “relic;” but in a recent editorial, a journal editor reassures his readers that yes, he reads every cover letter — and yes, it’s important. (If you agree with him, let us know in our poll, below.)
In “Dear Authors: We Do Read Your Cover Letters,” James Kenar, editor of the Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society, insists on their importance: Continue reading Do scientific manuscripts need cover letters?
A number of readers contacted us last week to let us know that their email alerts had stopped arriving. We’ve now fixed that problem, which had to do with a software update. With apologies for the technical glitch, here’s a roundup (from a Friday post, which wasn’t delivered by email) of posts for which emails didn’t go out, in case you missed them: Continue reading A significant cardiology retraction; second retraction from Case Western biologist; and more you may have missed
This week at Retraction Watch featured the return of a notorious fraudster, and plagiarism of plagiarism. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Macchiarini guilty of misconduct; controversial PACE data to be released; gender bias at conferences
We’ve got some late-breaking news to report — plus, it’s been a busy news week overall, and some of our email alerts didn’t go out, due to a programming glitch. Below, here are some recent stories you may have missed.
A tribunal at Queen Mary University of London has decided to disclose the data from the controversial PACE trial, which tested various therapies for chronic fatigue syndrome. For critics of this study, this has been a long-awaited decision.
What’s more, Continue reading Posts you may have missed: Student loses PhD, controversial data to be released