Search Results for: pubpeer

“Clear signs of manipulation” in paper co-authored by prominent geneticist

A third paper co-authored by researchers based at a prominent lab whose work has been under investigation on and off for almost three years has been retracted. According to the notice, the university’s investigation found that a 2008 paper in FEBS Letters contained “clear signs of manipulation” in three figures. Research from geneticist David Latchman’s … Continue reading “Clear signs of manipulation” in paper co-authored by prominent geneticist

Delays, arguing over upcoming Cell retraction leave first author “devastated”

After being “blindsided” a few months ago when she was told one of her 2005 papers was going to be retracted, a researcher scrambled to get information about why. And when she didn’t like the answers, she took to PubPeer. Eight days ago, Shalon (Babbitt) Ledbetter, the first author of the 2005 paper published in … Continue reading Delays, arguing over upcoming Cell retraction leave first author “devastated”

Caught Our Notice: Voinnet co-author issues another correction

Title: AtsPLA2-α nuclear relocalization by the Arabidopsis transcription factor AtMYB30 leads to repression of the plant defense response What Caught Our Attention:  A previous collaborator with high-profile plant biologist Olivier Voinnet (who now has eight retractions) has issued an interesting correction to a 2010 PNAS paper. Susana Rivas is last author on the paper, the … Continue reading Caught Our Notice: Voinnet co-author issues another correction

Cancer biologist retracts five papers

A cancer researcher based at The Ohio State University has retracted five papers from one journal, citing concerns about figures. The notices for all five papers state the Journal of Biological Chemistry raised questions about some figures, and the authors were not able to supply raw data in all instances. Four of the notices say … Continue reading Cancer biologist retracts five papers

Chemistry journal retracts highly criticized paper

A chemistry journal has retracted a nanoparticle paper following heavy outcry from readers, who alleged the paper contained signs of obvious manipulation. After the paper appeared in 2017, one critic lamented it contained “obviously fabricated” images, and asked the journal to retract it. Another suggested the presence of one image merited “an instant lifetime ban.” … Continue reading Chemistry journal retracts highly criticized paper

Weekend reads: Automated image duplication detection?; journal editor frustrations; cash for catching errors

We seem to be past the worst of our technical issues, so thanks for your patience with us over the past few weeks. (Some of the fixes came at a cost, so we would be remiss if we did not ask readers to consider a donation to support our work.) The week at Retraction Watch featured … Continue reading Weekend reads: Automated image duplication detection?; journal editor frustrations; cash for catching errors

Retracted letter about vaccine safety made potentially “slanderous” claims

Last October, David Hawkes read a letter to the editor that shocked him: It alleged Hawkes and a colleague had lied about their professional affiliations. Hawkes told Retraction Watch that he contacted the journal Toxicology on October 19 to complain that the letter contained “numerous factual errors that could adversely affect our professional standing,” and … Continue reading Retracted letter about vaccine safety made potentially “slanderous” claims

Unusual: Author uses a reference list to accuse a paper of plagiarism

Here’s an unusual way to allege plagiarism: Do it in the reference list. That’s what Brian Levine, a professor in the College of Information and Computer Sciences at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, did when he came across a paper he wanted to cite but suspected of plagiarism. When Levine published his 2017 paper, he … Continue reading Unusual: Author uses a reference list to accuse a paper of plagiarism

The RW Week In Review: Anti-gay bias, an authorship lawsuit; misconduct in industry vs. academia

We’ve been having some technical issues with the site, which may have kept some readers from accessing our content this week. We think we’ve figured out what was wrong, and fixed it, but in the meantime here’s what we were up to this week, in case you missed it:

Weekend reads: Papers from prison; profs’ kids as co-authors; a history journal flap

The week at Retraction Watch featured a look at whether scientists in industry or academia admit to more misconduct, another strange publication twist for a vaccine study, and the correction of a study that claimed anti-gay attitudes could take more than a decade off of gay peoples’ lifespans. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: