One of the most common reasons for retractions is image manipulation. When searching for evidence of it, researchers often rely on what their eyes tell them. But what if screening tools could help? Last week, researchers described a new automated tool to screen images for duplication (reported by Nature News); with help from publishing giant … Continue reading New tool looks for signs of image doctoring
Our readers will likely know that the site has been having significant trouble for more than two weeks. Thanks for your patience, your offers to help, and for sticking with us during that time. We’re happy to say that we seem to have identified all of the various issues involved, and have solved them. Some … Continue reading Retraction Watch is back at full speed. Here’s what you need to do to make sure you’re seeing our content.
Here’s an unusual way to allege plagiarism: Do it in the reference list. That’s what Brian Levine, a professor in the College of Information and Computer Sciences at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, did when he came across a paper he wanted to cite but suspected of plagiarism. When Levine published his 2017 paper, he … Continue reading Unusual: Author uses a reference list to accuse a paper of plagiarism
We’ve been having some technical issues with the site, which may have kept some readers from accessing our content this week. We think we’ve figured out what was wrong, and fixed it, but in the meantime here’s what we were up to this week, in case you missed it:
The U.S. National Institutes of Health is closing PubMed Commons, the feature that enabled readers to post comments on abstracts indexed in PubMed. NIH announced it will be discontinuing the service — which allowed only signed comments from authors with papers indexed in PubMed, among other restrictions — after more than four years, due to … Continue reading PubMed shuts down its comments feature, PubMed Commons
Title: Does repetition help? Impact of destination promotion videos on perceived destination image and intention-to-visit change What Caught Our Attention: At times we get to just appreciate the moment: A paper focused on repetition — specifically, linking repeated exposure to travel videos and actual visits to the location — got retracted for duplication. The notice … Continue reading Caught Our Notice: An article about repetition is duplicated? Priceless
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
Here’s a rather odd case: A postdoctoral researcher says his former boss changed his name on a paper without his permission. According to the postdoc, Antonio Herrera-Merchan, his principal investigator at University of Granada insisted on the name change to distance them both from a scandal in Herrera-Merchan’s previous lab. After publishing a paper in … Continue reading Lead author changes co-author’s name on a paper without his permission. Why?
The new year will bring a sixth retraction for food scientist Brian Wansink, whose work has been under fire for all of 2017. Although the notice has not yet been released, the journal Appetite plans to retract a 2003 paper about the different forces that motivate people to try new foods (referring, in this specific … Continue reading Another retraction to appear for Cornell food scientist Brian Wansink
A 2016 case study in Neurology exploring a “mystery case” has been retracted because four figures had already been published in a 2012 article. The two papers have three authors in common, but according to the retraction notice, none could explain the duplicate publication. The notice states that Pierre Labauge, the corresponding author on the … Continue reading Paper retracted when co-author forgets he had published a figure before