This week at Retraction Watch featured polar opposites: Two new entries in our “doing the right thing” category, and one in our plagiarism euphemism parade. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
A scientific publishing gadfly who was banned earlier this year from an Elsevier journal for “personal attacks and threats” has had a paper rejected by a Springer journal after he called for the editor’s resignation because of alleged incompetence. As detailed in a comment left at Retraction Watch, Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva submitted a … Continue reading Publishing gadfly demands journal editor’s resignation, then has “fairly incomprehensible” paper rejected
You’ve got to love when an author is willing to detail the specifics of an unhelpful retraction notice. This May, a paper came out in Journal of Thoracic Diseases about drug-resistant tuberculosis. It was retracted in June, for “some misconduct in the manuscript.” Here’s the notice: The article “Application status of MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry in the … Continue reading Author steps in to clarify vague tuberculosis retraction
Another busy week at Retraction Watch. Here’s what was happening elsewhere on the web in scientific publishing and related issues:
We have a curious case for the “avoiding the p word” files from the Journal of East Asia & International Law. The paper in question, “Border Enforcement of Plant Variety Rights: A Comparison between Japan and Taiwan,” was written by Shun-liang Hsu and appeared in the Spring 2012 issue of the journal. Here are the … Continue reading Heads up: “Borrowing” your student’s work will earn you a partial retraction — and a five-year publishing ban
Retraction Watch readers will no doubt be familiar with the fact that retraction rates are rising, but one of the unanswered questions has been whether that increase is due to more misconduct, greater awareness, or some combination of the two. In a new paper in PLOS Medicine, Daniele Fanelli, who has studied misconduct and related … Continue reading “Why Growing Retractions Are (Mostly) a Good Sign”: New study makes the case
Time to roll out the irony meter again. A group of scientists from Uttar Pradesh, India, who study forensic bioinformatics have had a paper retracted for something that can generally be detected with a specialized form of forensic software: Plagiarism. Here’s the notice for Kumar Ajay, Singh Neetu, Gaurav S.S. “Forensic Bioinformatics: An innovative technological … Continue reading Irony alert: Forensic experts have paper retracted for plagiarism
Our list of ways that authors and editors find to dance around writing the word “plagiarism” seems to grow longer by the week. Today, we can add “administrative error” to that collection of euphemisms, thanks to authors from South Africa and the editors of an education journal. Here’s the notice for “Development studies students as … Continue reading That’s not plagiarism, it’s an “administrative error”
In our work here at Retraction Watch, we’ve seen a number of euphemisms for plagiarism. (See slides 18-22 of this presentation for a selection.) Today, in following up on a case we covered last month, we’ve learned of a new way to avoid saying the dreaded p-word. We reported in June that sex researcher Willibrord … Continue reading What’s the difference between plagiarism and “unintended and unknowing breach of copyright?”
We here at Retraction Watch HQ are always on the lookout for euphemisms for plagiarism (and other misconduct, of course). Among our favorites are “referencing failure” and the journal that allowed researchers to call plagiarism an “approach” to writing. Here’s a new one that’s sure to do well with voters. The journal Rejuvenation Research has … Continue reading Retraction cites “unintended excessive reuse” in commentary — of paper it was praising