After a scientist was found guilty of misconduct at one university, a new institution asked to take over his grant and put him in charge of it. But the new institution — the Morehouse School of Medicine, in Atlanta, Georgia — denies they ever employed him.
Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, we could really use your help. Would you consider a tax-deductible donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance. The week at Retraction Watch featured the story of two scientific sleuths who were right — … Continue reading Weekend reads: Medical device maker demands a retraction; an admission from a predatory publisher; a journal digs in and won’t retract
A researcher in medical ethics has retracted two papers within the last two years after admitting to reusing material from previous publications. Ezio Di Nucci, based at the University of Copenhagen, claims he “had misunderstood the relevant practices.” The first retraction, issued in 2017 by the Journal of Value Inquiry, notes the paper “constituted the … Continue reading Medical ethicist: “I now understand that I should not have been re-using material”
When examining the roles of conflicts of interest in academic publishing, most research focuses on transparency around the payments authors receive. But what about journal editors? According to a new Peer J preprint, two-thirds of editors at prominent journals received some type of industry payment over the last few years – which, at many journals, … Continue reading Most editors of top medical journals receive industry payments: report
Chinese biomedical researchers estimate that 40% of research in their country has been affected in some way by misconduct, according to a new survey. The authors are quick to caution against putting too much stock in this figure due to the subjective nature of the survey, published in Science and Engineering Ethics. The estimates also … Continue reading Four in 10 biomedical papers out of China are tainted by misconduct, says new survey
The week at Retraction Watch featured revelations about what happens when researchers unwittingly use a tool without permission, and a look at why women peer review less often than men. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
The challenges facing science publishing are ever-evolving, and so too are the recommendations for how to face them. As such, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) frequently updates its advice to authors. In December, 2016, it made some notable changes – specifically, asking authors to pay closer attention to where they publish, in … Continue reading Watch out for predatory journals, and consider retract/replace, suggests medical journal group
A journal has retracted a 2015 study about lung cancer after learning the peer-review process had been compromised. The paper was published in March, 2015 — the same month publisher BioMed Central (BMC) pulled 43 papers for fake reviews. According to the retraction notice in the European Journal of Medical Research, the authors’ institution in China … Continue reading Medical journal retracts study over fake review, authorship concerns
A major medical journal has updated its instructions to authors, now requiring that they publish protocols of clinical trials, along with any changes made along the way. We learned of this change via the COMPare project, which has been tracking trial protocol changes in major medical journals — and been critical of the Annals of Internal Medicine‘s … Continue reading In major shift, medical journal to publish protocols along with clinical trials
A paper that tested the clinical value of honey on venous ulcers has been pulled by the Journal of Clinical Nursing after an investigation uncovered “errors in the data analysis.” Last year, the authors pulled another paper on the healing properties of honey on wounds. We just discovered this second retraction, which appears in the September 2015 … Continue reading Authors retract second study about medical uses of honey