Search Results for: authorship

Authors retract heart disease paper for “nonscientific reason”

Researchers have retracted a 2018 paper about the genetic underpinnings of heart disease from the FASEB Journal — and it’s not entirely clear why. The paywalled retraction notice simply cites a “nonscientific reason.” Cody Mooneyhan, the director of publications at the journal, declined to provide further details, and the authors have provided different accounts of … Continue reading Authors retract heart disease paper for “nonscientific reason”

Journal retracts and replaces paper because author stole credit for group’s work

An optics journal has retracted and replaced a 2016 paper after discovering that the author took sole credit for a team project. According to the retraction notice, a University of Leeds review determined that “the research on which the paper was based the work of a team,” not just that of Raied S. Al-Lashi, who … Continue reading Journal retracts and replaces paper because author stole credit for group’s work

Clue fans, here’s scientific proof that it was Colonel Mustard with a candlestick

When we last heard from Eve Armstrong one year ago today, she was a postdoc at the BioCircuits Institute at the University of California, San Diego, musing mathematically about what would have happened if she had asked one Barry Cottonfield to her high school prom in 1997. Today, she is a postdoc at the Computational … Continue reading Clue fans, here’s scientific proof that it was Colonel Mustard with a candlestick

Weekend reads: “Weaponized transparency;” fighting academic spam with humor; NIH cracks down

Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, would you consider a tax-deductible donation of $25, or a recurring donation of an amount of your choosing, to support it? Thanks in advance. The week at Retraction Watch featured a major case of misconduct at The Ohio State University, … Continue reading Weekend reads: “Weaponized transparency;” fighting academic spam with humor; NIH cracks down

Weekend reads: No reproducibility crisis?; greatest corrections of all time; an archaeology fraud

The week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of a paper on homeopathy whose authors had been arrested; news about 30 retractions for an engineer in South Korea; and a story about how two stem cell researchers who left Harvard under a cloud are being recommended for roles at Italy’s NIH. Here’s what was happening … Continue reading Weekend reads: No reproducibility crisis?; greatest corrections of all time; an archaeology fraud

Probe into Carlo Croce reached “defensible and reasonable” decisions, says external review

An independent analysis of how The Ohio State University reviewed allegations of misconduct against a high-profile cancer researcher has found that the institution “complied with applicable law and with relevant institutional policies and reached reasoned and supportable conclusions.” The review follows numerous allegations of research misconduct against Carlo Croce, described in a March 8 story … Continue reading Probe into Carlo Croce reached “defensible and reasonable” decisions, says external review

Weekend reads: 20th anniversary of a fraud; uses and misuses of doubt; how common is scooping?

Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, would you consider a tax-deductible donation to support it?  The week at Retraction Watch featured the story of how two highly cited papers turned out to be wrong; a big prize for a researcher who has been dogged by … Continue reading Weekend reads: 20th anniversary of a fraud; uses and misuses of doubt; how common is scooping?

“Ethical shades of gray:” 90% of researchers in new health field admit to questionable practices

It’s always interesting to know how many researchers in any given field engage in so-called questionable research practices that don’t rise to the level of out-and-out fraud: honorary authorship, citing articles they don’t read, choosing reference lists that would please editors or reviewers, for instance. And when the researchers work in a field with potential … Continue reading “Ethical shades of gray:” 90% of researchers in new health field admit to questionable practices

Weekend reads: Automated image duplication detection?; journal editor frustrations; cash for catching errors

We seem to be past the worst of our technical issues, so thanks for your patience with us over the past few weeks. (Some of the fixes came at a cost, so we would be remiss if we did not ask readers to consider a donation to support our work.) The week at Retraction Watch featured … Continue reading Weekend reads: Automated image duplication detection?; journal editor frustrations; cash for catching errors

When — and how — should journals flag papers that don’t quite meet retraction criteria?

Readers of Retraction Watch will be no strangers to the practice of issuing Expressions of Concern — editorial notices from journals that indicate a paper’s results may not be valid. While a good idea in theory — so readers can be aware of potential issues while an investigation is underway — in practice, it’s a … Continue reading When — and how — should journals flag papers that don’t quite meet retraction criteria?