Search Results for: authorship

Fraud by bone researcher takes down two meta-analyses, a clinical trial, and review

The troubles continue for a bone researcher, who’s lost multiple papers in recent months due to problems ranging from data issues to including authors without their consent. Now, journals have retracted two more papers by Yoshihiro Sato. And in a sign of the downstream effects that fraud can have, another journal has retracted two meta-analyses by other … Continue reading Fraud by bone researcher takes down two meta-analyses, a clinical trial, and review

Weekend reads: Death of a cancer lab; women economists’ papers are more readable; self-correction grows

The week at Retraction Watch featured a study of why researchers commit misconduct, and the story of former Northwestern scientist who sued the university for defamation. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

U.S. panel sounds alarm on “detrimental” research practices, calls for new body to help tackle misconduct

A new report from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences panel urges the creation of a new, independent group to help tackle research misconduct and other practices that hurt the enterprise. The report also renames those problematic practices — such as “misleading statistical analysis that falls short of falsification,” awarding authorship to researchers who don’t deserve … Continue reading U.S. panel sounds alarm on “detrimental” research practices, calls for new body to help tackle misconduct

Busted: Researcher used fake contact info for co-authors

In February, Lusine Abrahamyan, an assistant professor at the University of Toronto, was contacted by ResearchGate. Her name was listed on a 2016 paper in a heart journal, the site told her — was Abrahamyan indeed a co-author? Um, no, she was not. In fact, before that moment, she didn’t know such a paper existed. It turns out, Abrahamyan had supervised … Continue reading Busted: Researcher used fake contact info for co-authors

Weekend reads: When reproducibility is weaponized; Internet-based paraphrasing tools; go parasites!

The week at Retraction Watch featured a predatory journal sting involving a fake disorder from Seinfeld, and a study with disturbing findings about how retracted papers are cited. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Weekend reads: The risks of spotlighting reproducibility; harassment = scientific misconduct?; trouble with funnel plots

The week at Retraction Watch featured the case of a peer review nightmare, and a story about harassment by a would-be scientific critic. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Weekend reads: Investigations need sunlight; should we name fraudster names?; how to kill predatory journals

The week at Retraction Watch featured a lawsuit threat following criticism of a popular education program, and the new editor of PLOS ONE’s explanation of why submissions are down. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Weekend reads: How to speed up peer review; the whipsaw of science news headlines; data-sharing stance sparks resignation request

The week at Retraction Watch featured more fallout from a citation-boosting episode, and a look at when animal research becomes unnecessary and cruel. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Stuck in limbo: What happens to papers flagged by journals as potentially problematic?

Expressions of concern, as regular Retraction Watch readers will know, are rare but important signals in the scientific record. Neither retractions nor corrections, they alert readers that there may be an issue with a paper, but that the full story is not yet clear. But what ultimately happens to papers flagged by these editorial notices? … Continue reading Stuck in limbo: What happens to papers flagged by journals as potentially problematic?

Weekend reads: They committed misconduct, then earned $100 million in grants; collateral publishing damage

The week at Retraction Watch featured a frank admission of error by a Nobel Prize winner, and a look at five “diseases” plaguing science. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: