We always like to get a historical perspective on how scientists have tried to correct the record, such as this attempt in 1756 to retract a published opinion about some of the work of Benjamin Franklin. Although that 18th century note used the word “retract,” it wasn’t a retraction like what we see today, in … Continue reading What did retractions look like in the 17th century?
Are individual scientists now more productive early in their careers than 100 years ago? No, according to a large analysis of publication records released by PLOS ONE today. Despite concerns of rising “salami slicing” in research papers in line with the “publish or perish” philosophy of academic publishing, the study found that individual early career researchers’ productivity has … Continue reading Researchers’ productivity hasn’t increased in a century, study suggests
This week at Retraction Watch featured seven retractions in a long-running case involving cancer research, as well as the retraction of a paper claiming a link between a vaccine and behavioral issues. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
A BMC journal has added an expression of concern to a paper on firefly genes after a University of Queensland investigation determined a table should be credited to a different source. According to a representative of the university, the investigation found no evidence of misconduct. The university submitted an erratum that the journal chose not … Continue reading Firefly paper flagged following Queensland investigation
A chemistry journal has issued a retraction after “a thorough and time-consuming analysis” revealed two out of four authors did not agree to submitting an article published in May, which also contains “considerable overlap and redundancy” with another paper published a few weeks prior in a different journal. Shortly after the paper appeared in Spectrochimica Acta Part … Continue reading Author dispute, “considerable overlap” retract chemistry study
For all our talk about finding new ways to measure scientists’ achievements, we’ve yet to veer away from a focus on publishing high-impact papers. This sets up a system of perverse incentives, fueling ongoing problems with reproducibility and misconduct. Is there another way? Sarah Greene, founder of Rapid Science, believes there is – and we’re … Continue reading A new metric: The Rapid Science Collaboration Score
Applied Surface Science has retracted an article that looks at the structure of thin tungsten-titanium coating, because it was submitted without all of the co-authors’ consent. According to the introduction of the paper, “Structure adhesion and corrosion resistance study of tungsten bisulfide doped with titanium deposited by DC magnetron co-sputtering,” such thin films are “widely … Continue reading Paper on the adhesiveness of a material doesn’t stick
A group of authors has earned two retractions for a pair of papers on which they had “severe conflicts of author sequences,” according to the retraction note. All of the authors were involved in a recent spate of compromised peer review that hit Springer journals back in August. Among the 64 retracted papers this summer, one … Continue reading Authors retract two papers for “severe conflicts of author sequences”
An investigation has uncovered fake reviews on 21 papers submitted to the Journal of the Renin-Angiotensin Aldosterone System. After taking a second look at accepted papers with an author-nominated reviewer, the journal discovered that the listed reviewers on the 21 papers, though real people, had never submitted a report. Eight of the papers have been retracted by … Continue reading Eight retractions for fake reviews lead journal to suspend author nominations
An author has been added to a biochemistry paper following an investigation by the University of Helsinki. Karen Sabatini, currently a biochemist at the University of San Diego, was erroneously left off the author list of a paper published in 2010 in Soft Matter. She apparently left Helsinki in 2010. The circumstances may be unclear, but one thing we … Continue reading Author added to paper after investigation at University of Helsinki