Search Results for: casadevall

“Why Growing Retractions Are (Mostly) a Good Sign”: New study makes the case

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

mBio retracts anthrax paper whose authors say they misinterpreted findings

mBio, whose editor, Arturo Casadevall, has contributed greatly to our knowledge about why articles are retracted, has an interesting retraction of its own. The journal — a publication of the American Society for Microbiology and the American Academy of Microbiology — is pulling a 2011 paper by a trio of researchers from the University of … Continue reading mBio retracts anthrax paper whose authors say they misinterpreted findings

“Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?” New study tries to answer

The title of this post is the title of a new study in PLOS ONE by three researchers whose names Retraction Watch readers may find familiar: Grant Steen, Arturo Casadevall, and Ferric Fang. Together and separately, they’ve examined retraction trends in a number of papers we’ve covered. Their new paper tries to answer a question … Continue reading “Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?” New study tries to answer

Could the sequester mean more business for Retraction Watch?

Consider this a bit of a thought experiment, but hear us out. The National Institutes of Health earlier this month notified the scientists it funds that, thanks to the sequester, many may soon face cuts in those grants as the agency tries to deal with a reduction in its $30.9 billion budget. In her March … Continue reading Could the sequester mean more business for Retraction Watch?

Are men more likely to commit scientific fraud?

Regular Retraction Watch readers may have noticed that many of the people whose fraud we write about are men. Certainly, the top retraction earners — Yoshitaka Fujii, Joachim Boldt, Diederik Stapel, and Naoki Mori, to name a few — all have a Y chromosome. But that doesn’t necessarily mean our sample size is representative. Now … Continue reading Are men more likely to commit scientific fraud?

Catching up: OSU “missed fraud,” Dipak Das lost tenured professorship, Ivan on NPR’s Science Friday

We have a few follow-ups from stories we’ve recently covered: Terry Elton case initially chalked up to “disorganization,” not misconduct Ohio State University (OSU), which along with the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) recently sanctioned a pharmacy professor for image manipulation, “failed at first to recognize his deception,” according to an investigation by The Columbus Dispatch … Continue reading Catching up: OSU “missed fraud,” Dipak Das lost tenured professorship, Ivan on NPR’s Science Friday

Most retraction notices don’t involve research misconduct or flawed data: new study

October, apparently, is “studies of retractions month.” First there was a groundbreaking study in PNAS, then an NBER working paper, and yesterday PLoS Medicine alerted us to a paper their sister journal, PLoS ONE, published last week, “A Comprehensive Survey of Retracted Articles from the Scholarly Literature.” The study, by Michael L. Grieneisen and Minghua Zhang, … Continue reading Most retraction notices don’t involve research misconduct or flawed data: new study

Majority of retractions are due to misconduct: Study confirms opaque notices distort the scientific record

A new study out in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) today finds that two-thirds of retractions are because of some form of misconduct — a figure that’s higher than previously thought, thanks to unhelpful retraction notices that cause us to beat our heads against the wall here at Retraction Watch. The … Continue reading Majority of retractions are due to misconduct: Study confirms opaque notices distort the scientific record

Is it time for a Retraction Index?

We often hear — with data to back the statement — that top-tier journals, ranked by impact factor, retract more papers than lower-tier journals. For example, when Murat Cokol and colleagues compared journals’ retraction numbers in EMBO Reports in 2007, as Nature noted in its coverage of that study (h/t Richard van Noorden): Journals with high impact factors … Continue reading Is it time for a Retraction Index?