Weekend reads: Peer review “ineffective and unworthy;” science a “profiteering enterprise;” Beall’s boss speaks

The week at Retraction Watch featured a praiseworthy retraction by a Nobel laureate, a finding of research misconduct in a much-watched case involving fish and microplastics, and death threats against a journalist reporting on a politician’s plagiarism. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

University investigation finds misconduct by bone researcher with 23 retractions

As a bone researcher continues to accrue retractions, an investigation at his former university has found misconduct in more than a dozen papers. On Nov. 15, Japan’s Hirosaki University announced it had identified fabrication and authorship issues in 13 papers by Yoshihiro Sato, and plagiarism in another. Sato, a professor at Hirosaki University Medical School … Continue reading University investigation finds misconduct by bone researcher with 23 retractions

Journal bans author for three years after retracting paper with “serious ethical” problems

An anatomy journal has banned a researcher from submitting papers for three years after determining one of his recently published papers suffered from “serious ethical” issues. According to Jae Seung Kang, associate editor at the journal Anatomy and Cell Biology (ACB), the paper’s sole author—Jae Chul Lee—falsified both his affiliation and approval for conducting animal … Continue reading Journal bans author for three years after retracting paper with “serious ethical” problems

Weekend reads: Problems in studies of gender; when scholarship is a crime; a journal about Mark Zuckerberg photos

The week at Retraction Watch featured a call to make peer reviews public, lots of news about Cornell food researcher Brian Wansink, and a request by the U.S. NIH that the researchers it funds don’t publish in bad journals. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Weekend reads: Publishing’s day of reckoning; an Impact Factor discount — on lunch; a prize for negative results

The week at Retraction Watch featured mass resignations from a journal’s editorial board, software that writes papers for you, and a retracted retraction. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Carlo Croce, facing misconduct allegations, accuses former colleague of misconduct

Carlo Croce, a cancer researcher who has faced numerous research misconduct allegations, recently accused a former lab member of misconduct. Although an institutional probe did not support that allegation, Croce’s efforts have led to a retraction. In November 2015, Croce and another cancer researcher at Ohio State University (OSU), Ramiro Garzon, contacted PLOS ONE, alleging … Continue reading Carlo Croce, facing misconduct allegations, accuses former colleague of misconduct

Most editors of top medical journals receive industry payments: report

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

Swedish review board finds misconduct by Macchiarini, calls for six retractions

An ethical review board in Sweden is asking journals to retract six papers co-authored by former star surgeon Paolo Macchiarini, after concluding that he and his co-authors committed misconduct. One of the papers is the seminal 2011 article in The Lancet, which described the first case of a transplant using an artificial trachea seeded with … Continue reading Swedish review board finds misconduct by Macchiarini, calls for six retractions

Weekend reads: No peer review crisis?; Fake conferences overwhelm real ones; Bullying vs. criticism

The week at Retraction Watch featured a retraction by a Nobel laureate, the eight excuses journal editors hear in responses to questions about data, and a description of a “disease” that affects many scientists. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

An accomplished philosopher invented a pseudonym. Why?

In 1980, Leila Tov-Ruach published a book chapter in which she thanked the editor of the book, Amélie Oksenberg Rorty, “for the hospitality that made the writing of this paper possible.” Normally, such an acknowledgement wouldn’t raise eyebrows. But, the trouble is, Tov-Ruach and Rorty are the same person:  Leila Tov-Ruach is a pseudonym for … Continue reading An accomplished philosopher invented a pseudonym. Why?