Search Results for: elsevier

Fertility docs said their study didn’t need ethics review. An investigation said they were wrong.

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.

Weekend reads: Suicide after misconduct; taxonomic vandalism; a disastrous Nature editorial

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:

When is a citation not enough?

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?

Curious: A paper’s acknowledgments harshly criticized Spanish gov’t funding. Now two authors object.

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.

Weekend reads: Predatory fraud; risky spreadsheets; how to report issues in a paper

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:

Weekend reads: A science BS detector; scholarly publishing’s 1%; a tenured professor is fired

The week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of a 35-year-old paper written by a cat, and the retraction of a study about a controversial gene editing technique. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

The three-year delay: Journal finally retracts paper based on made-up data

Three years after an investigation revealed a 2013 paper was based on fraudulent data, a journal has finally retracted it. The paper, published in Journal of Hazardous Materials, was one of seven articles by a team at the Institute of Microbial Technology (IMTECH) in Chandigarh, India that contain fabricated data, according to an investigation by … Continue reading The three-year delay: Journal finally retracts paper based on made-up data

Weekend reads: 10 rules for research misconduct; peer review’s black box; the rich get richer

The week at Retraction Watch featured authors making a difficult decision to retract once-promising findings about gliobastoma, and sanctions for a researcher in whose lab image manipulations were found. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

“We do not want to create false hope”: Authors retract Cell paper they can’t replicate

A few years ago, researchers in Sweden had something to celebrate: They thought they had discovered a chink in the armor of the most common type of malignant brain cancer. In a 2014 Cell paper, the team — led by Patrik Ernfors at the Karolinska Institutet — reported that they had identified a small molecule … Continue reading “We do not want to create false hope”: Authors retract Cell paper they can’t replicate

NIH neuroscientist up to 19 retractions

The string of apparent bad luck continues for Stanley Rapoport. Rapoport, a neuroscientist based at the U.S. National Institute on Aging, has lost three more papers in three journals due to the misconduct of his co-authors. By our count, these retractions bring his tally to 19 — and tie him for 21st place on our leaderboard. … Continue reading NIH neuroscientist up to 19 retractions