David Resnik, a National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) bioethicist who has published on retractions and corrections, is apparently hoping to do so again. In a request for information that went out from the NIH last week, Resnik seeks: Continue reading Journal editors, an NIH bioethicist wants to hear your experiences with retractions
A cardiology researcher in Illinois coerced trainees to fake the results of a heart test so that patients would qualify to enter a clinical trial, according to a new finding by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI).
Here’s an excerpt from the ORI’s notice about Parag V. Patel, of Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, in Park Ridge, Illinois: Continue reading Researcher intimidated trainees into faking heart test results: ORI
Karel Bezouška, the scientist who tried to tamper with an investigation into his work by breaking into a lab refrigerator, has had his fifth and sixth papers retracted.
Here’s the notice from Bioconjugate Chemistry for 2012’s “Dimerization of an Immunoactivating Peptide Derived from Mycobacterial hsp65 Using N-Hydroxysuccinimide Based Bifunctional Reagents Is Critical for Its Antitumor Properties:” Continue reading Author who broke into lab to tamper with investigation now up to half a dozen retractions
Gentle readers: Since August of 2010 when we launched Retraction Watch, you’ve showed us plenty of love, for which we are ever grateful. Your encouragement, story tips, and critiques are what make the site what it is. It’s great to know that we are providing you with a valuable source of information that has helped focus public attention on scientific misconduct and the process of self-correction.
Now, we’re hoping some of you will consider making a financial contribution. To continue to grow Retraction Watch, we will need resources. Please consider supporting our blog financially by becoming a paying subscriber at a modest level (or, if the spirit moves you, at an immodest level — we’ll take that, too!).
How will we use the money? Continue reading Dear Retraction Watch readers: We want to grow. Here’s how you can help
Another busy week here at Retraction Watch, with many in the scientific world glued to their browsers for more information on the latest stem cell controversy. Hear Ivan on the BBC discussing what that story means for post-publication peer review. Elsewhere around the web: Continue reading Weekend reads: STAP stem cell controversy grinds on, plagiarism puzzles
The journal Wear — an Elsevier title, not a Condé Nast fashion magazine — has retracted a paper by a pair of Chinese physicists after the researchers were unable to replicate their findings.
The 2009 article, “Microstructure and tribological characterizations of Ni based self-lubricating coating,” was written by authors from the MOE Key Laboratory for Nonequilibrium Synthesis and Modulation of Condensed Matter and the MOE Key Laboratory for Strength and Vibration at Jiaotong University, in Xi’an. It purported to find that: Continue reading Doing the right thing: Authors retract lubricant paper whose findings they can’t reproduce
Retraction Watch readers may recall that in November, we, along with Automattic, the company behind WordPress, filed a lawsuit against someone who filed a false copyright infringement claim about ten of our posts.
On a false pretense — copying and pasting the posts onto a website in India, then claiming that we had plagiarized that site — that person used a law known as the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) to force WordPress to remove our posts. Here’s why WordPress had to do that, as Ars Technica had put it a few years earlier: Continue reading Fight against false copyright claims goes to Capitol Hill
Rick Reilly, a noted sports columnist, once wrote about football replays:
Tell me if I’m a crank, but do you notice that every time a football replay comes up—and I mean every time—the color guy goes, “OK, now watch this!” I mean, what else are we gonna do? Suddenly start knitting a sweater? Start collecting for UNICEF? You don’t need to tell us to watch the TV set we’re already watching! OK, maybe I am a crank.
But readers of Reilly might well have wondered why they were being subjected to replays of his work. His bosses at ESPN.com evidently did, because they’ve unplugged the writer’s keyboard in the wake of a self-plagiarism scandal, according to news reports. Such self-plagiarism — more accurately referred to as duplication — is of course a frequent reason for retractions.
Deadspin offers a nice side-by-side of the similarities between a recent Reilly column — titled, ironically, “Don’t act like you’ve been there” — and one from 2009, brought to the publication’s attention by a reader. Some examples: Continue reading Sports columnist Reilly loses ESPN.com gig after replaying his work
Two researchers who wrote a review article on the genetics of lung cancer have retracted the paper. But why evidently is for them to know and us to find out.
The article, “Epigenetic aberrant methylation of tumor suppressor genes in small cell lung cancer,” was published in the August 2013 issue of the Journal of Thoracic Disease by authors from Shandong University in China.
According to the retraction notice: Continue reading Why was that lung cancer paper retracted? The “authors’ reason,” of course
Ivan is scheduled to be on Inside Science on BBC Radio 4 at 12:30 p.m. Eastern (1630 UK time) to discuss the latest stem cell controversy, and what it says about the state of post-publication peer review. Continue reading Tune into BBC Radio 4 today to hear Ivan talk about latest stem cell controversy, post-publication peer review