The week at Retraction Watch featured a journal that will pay authors royalties, a new estimate of how many papers are affected by contaminated cell lines, and threats by more than 20 researchers at Johns Hopkins to resign from a journal’s editorial board if a paper isn’t retracted. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
A new journal is offering something we’ve never seen before: A cash reward to corresponding authors of papers it publishes. Normally, in the case of open-access journals, researchers have to pay article processing charges (APCs). But Minimally Invasive Surgical Oncology, an open-access journal launched at the end of last year, flips the typical narrative — … Continue reading Journal: Publish here, and we’ll pay you $500
A social psychology journal has added an expression of concern to a paper by prominent social psychologist Jens Förster, whose work has been subject to much scrutiny. This is the latest in a long-running saga involving Förster. The 2012 paper in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology had been flagged by a 2015 report describing … Continue reading Journal adds concern notice to paper by psychologist Jens Förster
In February 2016, Albert Jambon received some puzzling news. Several colleagues had alerted him to a paper, published online in late December 2015 in the Journal of African Earth Sciences (JAES), reporting the discovery of a rare mineral, which Jambon had been analyzing. When Jambon read the paper, he realized it was a modified version … Continue reading Researcher discovers paper published by co-author in another journal
A cardiology journal has retracted a 2016 meta-analysis after the editors had an, ahem, change of heart about the rigor of the study. The article, “Ivabradine as adjuvant treatment for chronic heart failure,” was published in the International Journal of Cardiology, an Elsevier title. The authors, a group at the Federal University of São Paulo, … Continue reading Reader complaints prompt retraction of meta-analysis of heart-failure drug
A journal is retracting a paper on the relative merits of one fertility procedure compared to another because the study never received ethical review or approval. In the paper, “Intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection versus conventional intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a randomized controlled trial,” originally published Aug. 27, 2015 in Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology, the authors … Continue reading Fertility docs said their study didn’t need ethics review. An investigation said they were wrong.
The week at Retraction Watch featured a battle over psychologists and torture, a case of misconduct at Harvard, allegations of bribery, and a lawsuit against the New York Times. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Last year, Boris Ratnikov was reading a paper and saw a familiar image. He quickly realized: The image was from a 2012 paper he’d written, but wasn’t cited. The 2016 Cell Metabolism paper he was reading had copied a figure from his 2012 PLOS ONE paper without referencing it. In September 2016, Ratnikov, who is … Continue reading When is a citation not enough?
In 2014, researchers condemned the Spanish Government for “destroying the R&D horizon of Spain and the future of a complete generation” in the acknowledgment section of a paper about wireless networks. Three years later, the two last authors of the paper are protesting that protest, issuing a correction to alert readers that they did not … Continue reading Curious: A paper’s acknowledgments harshly criticized Spanish gov’t funding. Now two authors object.
The week at Retraction Watch featured a look at publishing bounties around the world, and the story of how the “right to be forgotten” law had led to a retraction. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: