Jeff Offutt, a professor of software engineering at George Mason University, has some stories to tell. He says that when one of his students wrote his first paper, the student reused four paragraphs from another source, not knowing he couldn’t do that. And then he tells of attending a PhD thesis defense where the student … Continue reading Meet the scientist whose ideas were stolen at least three times
In March 2017, Christopher Blanford received an email from an editor at the Journal of Crystal Growth. Blanford had been named as a suggested reviewer for a manuscript, and the editor, Arnab Bhattacharya, wanted to verify that the Gmail account the authors provided was legitimate. It was not. Blanford—a senior lecturer in biomaterials at the … Continue reading After Elsevier knew an author faked reviews, it kept accepting his papers for more than a year
Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, would you consider a year-end tax-deductible donation to support it? The week at Retraction Watch featured an image so nice, it was used eight times, a co-author who forgot he’d used a figure elsewhere, and the 19th retraction … Continue reading Weekend Reads: A plagiarism fighter who plagiarizes; too much ado about reproducibility?; how scientists should be judged
Elsevier has retracted 13 papers—and says it will retract 13 more—after discovering they were accepted because of fake reviews. A spokesperson for Elsevier told us that the journals are in the process of retracting all 26 papers affected by the “peer-review manipulation” and “unexplained authorship irregularities.” Most share one corresponding author, a physical science researcher … Continue reading Elsevier retracting 26 papers accepted because of fake reviews
The author of a 2009 commentary exploring “sexually specific infanticide” in bears has won a judgment against Elsevier for using “untruthful and unverified” language in a 2011 retraction notice. The last author, Miguel Delibes, who filed the suit in 2014, explained that the judge ruled he should accept the journal’s decision to retract his paper, … Continue reading Author wins judgment against Elsevier in lawsuit over retraction
Here at Retraction Watch, we constantly receive emails from readers who are frustrated with a particular journal — perhaps it has ignored obvious problems in a published paper, performed only a cursory peer review, or takes months (or years) to take action on a problematic article. Many whistleblowers bring their concerns to the Committee on … Continue reading It’s official: When journals behave badly, there could be some punishment
The week at Retraction Watch featured a praiseworthy retraction by a Nobel laureate, a finding of research misconduct in a much-watched case involving fish and microplastics, and death threats against a journalist reporting on a politician’s plagiarism. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
As a bone researcher continues to accrue retractions, an investigation at his former university has found misconduct in more than a dozen papers. On Nov. 15, Japan’s Hirosaki University announced it had identified fabrication and authorship issues in 13 papers by Yoshihiro Sato, and plagiarism in another. Sato, a professor at Hirosaki University Medical School … Continue reading University investigation finds misconduct by bone researcher with 23 retractions
An anatomy journal has banned a researcher from submitting papers for three years after determining one of his recently published papers suffered from “serious ethical” issues. According to Jae Seung Kang, associate editor at the journal Anatomy and Cell Biology (ACB), the paper’s sole author—Jae Chul Lee—falsified both his affiliation and approval for conducting animal … Continue reading Journal bans author for three years after retracting paper with “serious ethical” problems
The week at Retraction Watch featured a call to make peer reviews public, lots of news about Cornell food researcher Brian Wansink, and a request by the U.S. NIH that the researchers it funds don’t publish in bad journals. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: