Last week, we reported that David Wright had resigned as director of the Office of Research Integrity (ORI). At the time, we noted we were short on details, but Science has obtained Wright’s resignation letter, which sheds a great deal of light on the move.
In his letter, according to Science, Wright wrote that: Continue reading In sharp resignation letter, former ORI director Wright criticizes bureaucracy, dysfunction
The American Journal of Gastroenterology has retracted a 2011 article on colon cancer by a group of Cleveland Clinic researchers after finding “evidence” of plagiarism in the text.
The article, a review, was titled “Molecular Pathways Underlying IBD-Associated Colorectal Neoplasia: Therapeutic Implications,” and has been cited 16 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.
Here’s the retraction notice: Continue reading Reverse peristalsis for gut journal which disgorges Cleveland Clinic paper for plagiarism
A common theme in movies involving time travel is that if you meet yourself in the past, you’ll upset the time-space continuum, and cause all sorts of problems. Well, a group of materials scientists in Hong Kong seems to have invented a time machine, and learned that if if you publish a paper that appears to have been published in the future, you’ll suffer a retraction (and correction) for duplicating your own data.
We’ll (try to) explain.
The group in 1997 published a paper in Composite Interfaces titled “Reliability of fiber Bragg grating sensors embedded in textile composites.”
But now comes the following — inscrutable — Corrigendum: Continue reading Researchers invent time machine! (But too late to avoid retraction for duplication)
March has come in like a lion for the folks at the Office of Research Integrity (ORI).
The agency’s director, David Wright, stepped down late last month for reasons that even now remain unclear. And in what seems to be an unrelated development, ORI has managed to draw the ire of Sen. Charles Grassley, who has been among the staunchest watchdogs over federal research integrity.
According to the Des Moines Register, the Iowa Republican
Continue reading Senator “unsatisfied” with ORI’s response on recovery of tainted grant money
Retraction Watch readers will likely be familiar with the story of Paul Brookes, the University of Rochester researcher whose identity as the person behind Science-Fraud.org was revealed in January 2013. That revelation — and legal threats — forced Brookes to shutter Science-Fraud.org.
In a new illuminating interview in Science, Brookes discusses the legal threats he faced, how they curtailed his travel, and how his university responded, among other subjects.
The risks faced by whistleblowers are a constant thread on Retraction Watch. So did the site have an effect on his ability to do science? Continue reading So what happened after Paul Brookes was forced to shut down Science-Fraud.org?
Judy Mikovits, the chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) researcher who had a paper linking the condition to XMRV retracted, has co-authored a book that’s coming out on May 6.
In an announcement on Age of Autism, co-author Kent Heckenlively gives a taste of what readers might find in the book, titled PLAGUE – One Scientist’s Intrepid Search for the Truth about Retroviruses, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Autism, and Other Diseases: Continue reading Chronic fatigue syndrome researcher Mikovits, who championed link to XMRV, to publish book
The editors of the journal Micron — an Elsevier title — have retracted its first paper ever, and in an editorial marking the occasion, take on a number of issues in scientific publishing misconduct.
The beginning of the editorial (which is paywalled): Continue reading Not-so-tiny ethics issues as Micron retracts first-ever paper, and authors apologize for five duplicates
A co-author of two papers claiming to have shown how to create stem cells simply and easily has requested their retraction, the Wall Street Journal is reporting: Continue reading Co-author of controversial acid STAP stem cell papers in Nature requests retraction: report
In response to “an extraordinary outpouring of discussions on open data and its place in scientific publishing” following a February 24 announcement about a new data policy at PLOS, the publisher has apologized and corrected the record.
The new policy — which was actually first announced on January 23, as we noted here — had led to criticism at the DrugMonkey blog, and a February 26 clarification seemed to do little to convince another critic. (Not all disagreed with the policy, however.)
In particular, there were objections to a section that began with Continue reading Following criticism, PLOS apologizes, clarifies new data policy
Another busy week at Retraction Watch. Here’s what was happening elsewhere around the web in science publishing and research integrity news: Continue reading Weekend reads: “Too much success” in psychology, why hoaxes aren’t the real problem in science