Search Results for: doing the right thing

Two crystallography papers break apart for “trivial errors,” says author

Biophysicists in India have retracted two crystallography papers describing protein binding sites following “concerns,” according to one retraction note. The last author on both papers, however, told us he believed the retractions were the result of “trivial errors.” Although one journal praised him in its retraction note for his “positive engagement,” he said the process left him feeling … Continue reading Two crystallography papers break apart for “trivial errors,” says author

Weekend reads: Is failing to share data misconduct?; worst journal ever; Elsevier boycott

The big news this week at Retraction Watch was the release of more than two dozen retractions for accounting researcher James Hunton, and the sentencing of Dong-Pyou Han for scientific fraud (see more below). Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Weekend reads: LaCour loses job offer; new Science data guidelines; Macchiarini grant funding frozen

This week at Retraction Watch saw us report on thousands of retractions from IEEE, which will have a serious effect on retraction record-keeping, a bizarre case of author impersonation, and a look at dentistry in outer space. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Should the chocolate-diet sting study be retracted? And why the coverage doesn’t surprise a news watchdog

Note: This story has been updated to include the journal’s response. See below. Yesterday, John Bohannon described in i09.com how he successfully”created” health news — he conducted a flawed trial of the health benefits of chocolate, gamed the data to produce statistically significant results, and published the findings in the International Archives of Medicine: It was terrible science. … Continue reading Should the chocolate-diet sting study be retracted? And why the coverage doesn’t surprise a news watchdog

Expression of concern opens floodgates of controversy over lead in water supply

An expression of concern has been published on a paper that taps into a decades-long fight over how to remove lead from the water supply. The paper in question, published in the Journal American Water Works Association, supports the safety of a common but frequently criticized way of incrementally removing lead pipes. The expression of concern came after years of … Continue reading Expression of concern opens floodgates of controversy over lead in water supply

Unhappy medium: Penn State website retracts article touting student psychic

Onward State, an alternative student news website for Penn State University, has pulled an article about a student psychic for promoting “one of the most fraudulent, predatory practices around.” The psychic has been given her own reality TV show on ABC Family (an oxymoron if ever there was one). The newspaper had reported the news … Continue reading Unhappy medium: Penn State website retracts article touting student psychic

Poll: What to do when peer review feels inadequate?

How should scientists think about papers that have undergone what appears to be a cursory peer review? Perhaps the papers were reviewed in a day — or less — or simply green-lighted by an editor, without an outside look. That’s a question Dorothy Bishop, an Oxford University autism researcher, asked herself when she noticed some … Continue reading Poll: What to do when peer review feels inadequate?

So you want to be a whistleblower? A lawyer explains the process

We are pleased to present the first in a series of articles by John R. Thomas, Jr., a lawyer at Gentry Locke [Editor’s note, 3/26/19: He has since moved to Haley, Hafemann, Magee and Thomas] who represents whistleblowers in a variety of False Claims Act cases. He writes about how whistleblowers can do the right … Continue reading So you want to be a whistleblower? A lawyer explains the process

Updated: Springer journal on hold for “pattern of inappropriate and compromised peer review”

Springer has put a cell biology journal on hold, “effective immediately,” after finding a “pattern of inappropriate and compromised peer review.” Here’s the brief statement from the publisher: