Columbia has settled a fraud case for $9.5M. Here’s why that’s important.

John Thomas
John Thomas

This summer, Columbia University signed a settlement agreement with the U.S. government over a case filed under the False Claims Act (FCA), which enables whistleblowers to sue institutions on behalf of the government. Although this may seem like one of the many legal issues facing academic science recently, this case merits a closer look, says John R. Thomas, Jr., an attorney with Gentry Locke who represents whistleblowers in a variety of FCA cases – including a potentially landmark case against Duke University that we covered for Science. Thomas – who also authored a three-part Retraction Watch primer on how to file an FCA suit (“So You Want to Be a Whistleblower?” Part One, Part Two, Part Three) – tells us what we need to know about this latest FCA verdict.

As readers of Retraction Watch are unfortunately well aware, dishonesty in research comes in many forms. While we often focus on dishonesty in research itself, scientists and institutions may also defraud the government through a variety of administrative avenues, such as effort reporting (accounting for researcher time), improper cost accounting, and inflated facilities and administrative (F&A) costs.

We saw an example of this in July, when Continue reading Columbia has settled a fraud case for $9.5M. Here’s why that’s important.

U.S. gov’t researchers withdraw climate paper after using pseudonyms

adv-space-resClimate scientists from the U.S. Department of Agriculture have withdrawn a study they wrote under eyebrow-raising pseudonyms.

The withdrawn paper, about predicting surface temperatures of planets, appeared in Advances in Space Research in August, 2015, and is authored by Den Volokin and Lark ReLlez.

Normally, a withdrawal wouldn’t raise our eyebrows, but climate scientist Gavin Schmidt pointed out on Twitter that the authors’ names are eerily similar to another pair who have published climate papers together: Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller. Yes, that’s correct — Den Volokin and Lark ReLlez are Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller spelled backwards. Nikolov and Zeller are currently listed as a physical scientist and a meteorologist, respectively, at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The notice doesn’t state the reason for withdrawal, and Pascal Willis, editor-in-chief of Advances in Space Research from the Earth Physics Institute in Paris, France, referred us to the study’s authors for more information. Elsevier, which publishes Advances in Space Research, confirmed that the paper was retracted due to an “authorship issue” — namely, that the authors had used pseudonyms.

We used the contact information listed on the paper for “Den Volokin,” and got this response: Continue reading U.S. gov’t researchers withdraw climate paper after using pseudonyms

No academic post for fraudster Diederik Stapel, after all

stapel_npc
Diederik Stapel

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

How can we improve preclinical research? Advice from a diabetes researcher

Daniel Drucker
Daniel Drucker

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

Ioannidis: We have “massive production of unnecessary, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses”

Reposting this as our email alerts seem to be down again. Read full post here.

We have an epidemic of deeply flawed meta-analyses, says John Ioannidis

john-ioannidis
John Ioannidis, via Stanford University

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

Meet the filmmakers who cracked open the case against star surgeon Macchiarini

svtlogo-black_v2Paolo 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

Danish court dismisses charges against neuroscientist in appeal of fraud verdict

court-caseA 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

Do scientific manuscripts need cover letters?

James Kenar
James Kenar

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 significant cardiology retraction; second retraction from Case Western biologist; and more you may have missed

RW logoA 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