In a massive cleanup, Springer and BioMed Central announced today they are retracting 58 papers for several reasons, including manipulation of the peer-review process and inappropriately allocating authorship. The papers appeared in seven journals, and more are under investigation. In a release issued today, the publishers note:
The week at Retraction Watch featured a cancer researcher retracting 19 studies at once from a single journal, and the story of how a 7-year-old came to publish a paper. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
A former cancer biologist at the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Florida has retracted 19 papers from a single journal. Jin Cheng, who studies how ovarian cancer develops, withdrew 19 papers from the Journal of Biological Chemistry originally published over the last 15 years, and corrected another. All of the retractions are for image manipulation. For … Continue reading Cancer researcher retracts 19 studies at once
A researcher in New Mexico has retracted three papers tainted by fraud. Lead author Samuel Lee, who works at the New Mexico Veterans Affairs (VA) Healthcare System and the University of New Mexico (UNM), requested Eukaryotic Cell retract two papers after identifying multiple instances of fabricated or falsified data. He requested the retraction of a review article based … Continue reading Gov’t researchers lose three papers for data doctoring
The University of Cologne has conducted an investigation into the research of Tina Wenz, and determined that six papers should be pulled due to scientific misconduct. In a release issued last week (as first reported by Leonid Schneider), the university lists six papers that “present scientific misconduct,” according to our Google Translate. One of the six … Continue reading German university recommends that six papers be retracted following probe
The week at Retraction Watch featured a look at where retractions for fake peer review come from, and an eyebrow-raising plan that has a journal charging would-be whistleblowers a fee. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
We were struck recently by a paper in Scientometrics that proposed a unique way to fund scientists: Distribute money equally, but require that each scientist donate a portion to others – turning the federal funding system into a crowd-sourcing venture that funds people instead of projects. The proposal could save the inordinate amount of time scientists … Continue reading What if scientists funded each other?
The week at Retraction Watch featured a look at whether we have an epidemic of flawed meta-analyses, and the story of a strange case involving climate research and pseudonyms. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
This week at Retraction Watch featured the return of a notorious fraudster, and plagiarism of plagiarism. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Retraction Watch readers may recall the case of Piero Anversa and Annarosa Leri, both formerly of Harvard and the Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston. The pair — which has had their work subjected to a retraction, expression of concern, and correction — sued their former employers in 2014 for costing them job offers after … Continue reading Scientists investigated for misconduct lose appeal in suit against Harvard. Lawyers explain what it means.