The week at Retraction Watch featured the world energy solution that wasn’t, a story about Elsevier and fake peer reviews, and a question from a readers about citing retracted papers. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
A researcher found guilty of misconduct earlier this year has been temporarily banned from funding by the German Research Foundation. The Foundation’s decision, issued on Dec. 14, 2017, comes six months after the Leibniz Association, made up of 91 independent research institutions, found Karl Lenhard Rudolph guilty of “grossly negligent scientific misconduct.” The research body … Continue reading Former director earns two-year funding ban after misconduct finding
The week at Retraction Watch featured the year’s top 10 retractions, more than two dozen retractions at Elsevier for fake peer review, and the resignations of two editors in chief over a controversial paper. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Retraction Watch readers may be forgiven for thinking that there has been at least a small uptick in the papers that claim to link autism and vaccines, and yet tend to raise more questions than they answer. Sometimes, they are retracted. See here, here and here, for example. We talk to David Gorski, well known … Continue reading “Utterly awful:” David Gorski weighs in on yet another paper linking vaccines and autism
Springer has retracted two papers, which appeared online earlier this year in different journals, after discovering both were published by mistake. A spokesperson at Springer explained that the retractions are “due to a human error.” According to one of the retraction notices, published in Archive for Mathematical Logic, the paper had not yet undergone peer … Continue reading When publishers mess up, why do authors pay the price?
A physics journal says it has planned for several months to retract a 2006 paper by a prominent researcher with multiple retractions, after a concerned reader notified the editor about extensive duplication. But, more than seven months after receiving the complaint, the journal Thin Solid Films has not yet taken action. So what’s taking so … Continue reading A physics journal agreed to retract a paper several months ago. It’s still not retracted.
Here’s a mystery: How did a nonexistent paper rack up hundreds of citations? Pieter Kroonenberg, an emeritus professor of statistics at Leiden University in The Netherlands, was puzzled when he tried to locate a paper about academic writing and discovered the article didn’t exist. In fact, the journal—Journal of Science Communications—also didn’t exist. Perhaps Kroonenberg’s … Continue reading The “phantom reference:” How a made-up article got almost 400 citations
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:
The week at Retraction Watch featured a journal that will pay authors royalties, a new estimate of how many papers are affected by contaminated cell lines, and threats by more than 20 researchers at Johns Hopkins to resign from a journal’s editorial board if a paper isn’t retracted. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
A new journal is offering something we’ve never seen before: A cash reward to corresponding authors of papers it publishes. Normally, in the case of open-access journals, researchers have to pay article processing charges (APCs). But Minimally Invasive Surgical Oncology, an open-access journal launched at the end of last year, flips the typical narrative — … Continue reading Journal: Publish here, and we’ll pay you $500