Search Results for: authorship

Weekend reads: Calls for retraction a bad idea?; is scientific fraud a crime?

This week at Retraction Watch featured an unusual excuse for missing data, and a guilty plea in court for misconduct. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

What if we tried to replicate papers before they’re published?

We all know replicability is a problem – consistently, many papers in various fields fail to replicate when put to the test. But instead of testing findings after they’ve gone through the rigorous and laborious process of publication, why not verify them beforehand, so that only replicable findings make their way into the literature? That … Continue reading What if we tried to replicate papers before they’re published?

Denmark court clears controversial psychologist of misconduct charges

A Danish court has determined that psychologist Helmuth Nyborg did not commit misconduct in a controversial 2011 paper which predicted an influx of immigrants into Denmark would lower the population’s average IQ by the latter part of this century. The ruling, reported by the Danish newspaper Politiken, overturns a previous finding of misconduct by the the Danish … Continue reading Denmark court clears controversial psychologist of misconduct charges

Family squabble over safety of eye therapy forces journal to pull paper

A father and son are fighting over whether a laser therapy they describe as co-authors of a 2015 paper could be harmful to patients, prompting the journal to retract the article. The small study suggested that the therapy could safely treat patients with glaucoma. But Tomislav Ivandic — the father — alleges that errors in how the study was … Continue reading Family squabble over safety of eye therapy forces journal to pull paper

What did retractions look like in the 17th century?

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?

Researchers’ productivity hasn’t increased in a century, study suggests

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

Weekend reads: Prof charged with $8 million research fraud; war on bullshit science; more Macchiarini fallout

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:

Firefly paper flagged following Queensland investigation

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

Author dispute, “considerable overlap” retract chemistry study

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

A new metric: The Rapid Science Collaboration Score

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