Search Results for: elsevier

“Devastated” researchers worry co-author’s use of fake reviews could hurt their careers

In late December, Ana Khajehnezhad learned what no scientist wants to hear: One of her papers had been retracted. The reason: Her co-author had faked the reviews. Khajehnezhad, who works at the Plasma Physics Research Center at Islamic Azad University in Tehran, Iran, told Retraction Watch she was “devastated” to hear the news: I was … Continue reading “Devastated” researchers worry co-author’s use of fake reviews could hurt their careers

Accusations of ”false claims” in anti-global warming paper unresolved after three years

Three years after receiving a complaint about extensive plagiarism and major errors in an anti-global warming paper, Elsevier says it’s still reviewing the allegations. In 2014, readers complained to the Elsevier journal Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews about plagiarism and technical flaws in a 2013 paper questioning mainstream climate change science. When we first began … Continue reading Accusations of ”false claims” in anti-global warming paper unresolved after three years

Weekend reads: Why following up on fraud matters; how many retractions in 2017?; misleading abstracts

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:

Former director earns two-year funding ban after misconduct finding

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

Weekend Reads: A journal apologizes; how to win a Nobel; changes at the top for top journals

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:

“Utterly awful:” David Gorski weighs in on yet another paper linking vaccines and autism

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

When publishers mess up, why do authors pay the price?

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 agreed to retract a paper several months ago. It’s still not retracted.

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.

The “phantom reference:” How a made-up article got almost 400 citations

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

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: