A highly controversial 2018 paper suggesting that too much bent-neck staring at your cell phone could sprout, in the words of one of the authors, a “horn” on the back of your head is — perhaps unsurprisingly — getting corrected. The article, “Prominent exostosis projecting from the occipital squama more substantial and prevalent in young … Continue reading ‘Text neck’ — aka ‘horns’ — paper earns corrections
A tenured professor of history at Columbia University will be stepping down at the end of next year after an investigating committee at the school found “incontrovertible evidence of research misconduct” in his controversial 2013 book. Charles King Armstrong, the Korea Foundation Professor of Korean Studies in the Social Sciences, was found to have “cited … Continue reading Columbia historian stepping down after plagiarism finding
A group of ophthalmology researchers in China got caught trying to pull the wool over the eyes of readers by falsely claiming to have used a therapy that doesn’t exist. As its title would indicate, the article, “Anti-angiogenic effect of Interleukin-26 in oxygen-induced retinopathy mice via inhibiting NFATc1-VEGF pathway,” by a team from Jinhua Municipal … Continue reading ‘The problem is that there is no IL-26 gene in the mouse’ — an exasperated letter leads to a retraction
Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, we could really use your help. Would you consider a tax-deductible donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance. The week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of a paper that claimed that scientists were … Continue reading Weekend reads: Citation manipulation gone wild; astrology meets research; a classic mistake in a study of free will
It’s no secret that retractions have a stigma, which is very likely part of why authors often resist the move — even when honest error is involved. There have been at least a few proposals to change the nomenclature for some retractions over the years, from turning them into “amendments” to a new taxonomy. Erica … Continue reading A publisher wants to destigmatize retractions. Here’s how.
Is it possible for just one researcher to perform a clinical trial of more than 200 participants? According to the editorial board of the European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, an Elsevier title, the answer would seem to be no. The journal has decided to retract a 2016 paper in which the … Continue reading “Questioned as implausible:” Journal retracts paper because a researcher claimed to perform a large clinical trial single-handedly
A chemical engineer in China who claims his supporting data were wiped out in a flood has notched his ninth retraction, seven from a single journal, for suspicious images and related issues. The work of Dong Ge Tong, of Chengdu University of Technology, had come under scrutiny in PubPeer, and several of his articles received … Continue reading “A flooding accident:” Engineer has seven papers retracted at once
Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a request: Our co-founder Ivan Oransky celebrated a birthday this past week, and he’d like nothing more than a gift to Retraction Watch to support our work. Here’s your chance. The week at Retraction Watch featured a massive correction for a paper used to support the ban on Caster … Continue reading Weekend reads: Self-citation farms; an editor refuses to retract; publishing enters politics
The authors of a controversial paper on what constitutes “normal” hormone levels in men and women — and, by implication, “male” and “female” athletes — are set to issue a massive correction of the work, Retraction Watch has learned. But an outside, albeit not disinterested, researcher who prompted the correction says the correction itself is … Continue reading Paper used to support ban on Caster Semenya competing earns massive correction
Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, we could really use your help. Would you consider a tax-deductible donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance. The week at Retraction Watch featured the story of a bad trip for some drug researchers; a suspension … Continue reading Weekend reads: Findings linked to $183 million deal questioned; how Jeffrey Epstein’s money blinded scientists; “a scientific Ponzi scheme”