Weekend reads: Publisher under fire; Canadian scientists demand change; a troubled psychiatry trial
The week at Retraction Watch featured an unwitting co-author and a painful example of doing the right thing. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Search Results for: authorship
Have 1 in 5 UK academics fabricated data?
A small survey of UK academics suggests misconduct such as faking data and plagiarism is occurring surprisingly often. The survey — of 215 UK academics — estimated that 1 in 7 had plagiarized from someone else’s work, and nearly 1 in 5 had fabricated data. Here’s how Joanna Williams and David Roberts at the University of Kent … Continue reading Have 1 in 5 UK academics fabricated data?
Sixth retraction appears for bone researcher due to “extensive self-plagiarism”
A bone researcher in Japan has logged his sixth retraction, after acknowledging he duplicated substantial portions of a 2011 paper and added “honorary” co-authors. The retraction, in Parkinsonism & Related Disorders, follows five others for Yoshihiro Sato, including one from JAMA, some of which were pulled over concerns regarding authorship and data integrity. The latest retraction duplicated … Continue reading Sixth retraction appears for bone researcher due to “extensive self-plagiarism”
Weekend reads: Open data’s downsides; do journals serve a purpose?; fraud allegations down in China
The week at Retraction Watch featured news that a religion journal wouldn’t be retracting a paper despite evidence of forgery in the evidence it relied on, and also news that we’re hiring. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Weekend reads: Naughty journals; whistleblowers’ frustration; new misconduct definition?
The week at Retraction Watch featured revelations of fraud in more than $100 million in government research, and swift findings in a much-discussed case. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Fake email for corresponding author forces neuro journal to retract paper
A chair of a neurobiology department in China has requested the retraction of a paper on which he was unwittingly listed as the lead and corresponding author. How could a corresponding author — you know, the person with whom the journal corresponds about the paper — be added without their consent? It seems that a fraudulent email account was involved in … Continue reading Fake email for corresponding author forces neuro journal to retract paper
“All co-authors are honorary:” Team earns fifth retraction
A team of researchers from Japan has earned a fifth retraction, after co-authors told the journal that they did not participate in much of the paper. Yoshihiro Sato, listed at Mitate Hospital, is the only author of the paper who was not “honorary,” the managing editor of the journal confirmed. He and the same co-authors recently lost three other … Continue reading “All co-authors are honorary:” Team earns fifth retraction
Meet our newest team member: Dalmeet Singh Chawla
Join us in welcoming new staff writer Dalmeet Singh Chawla. Dalmeet was inspired by talks at the 2014 Association of British Science Writers meeting (including by our own Ivan Oransky) to build a niche for himself as a writer – lucky for us, he chose science publishing. His focus has been on stories about innovations … Continue reading Meet our newest team member: Dalmeet Singh Chawla
Authors pull 4 papers from surgery journal for plagiarism
The authors of four papers have pulled them for “significant overlap” with other publications, as well as borrowing “large portions of text” — in other words, plagiarism. Two of the newly retracted papers published in BMC Surgery also listed co-authors who were “not involved in the study;” a similar note appears for an additional 2015 retraction that we’ve found for one … Continue reading Authors pull 4 papers from surgery journal for plagiarism
Weekend reads: How to prove (and find) false claims; confessions of a wasteful scientist
This week at Retraction Watch featured what may be a record for plagiarism, a paper retracted because the device researchers claimed to use hadn’t arrive in the institution yet, and a technical glitch, which meant you may have missed some of our posts. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: