The week at Retraction Watch featured news that a religion journal wouldn’t be retracting a paper despite evidence of forgery in the evidence it relied on, and also news that we’re hiring. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Academic publishers argue they add value to manuscripts by coordinating the peer-review process and editing manuscripts — but a new preliminary study suggests otherwise. The study — which is yet to be peer reviewed — found that papers published in traditional journals don’t change much from their preprint versions, suggesting publishers aren’t having as much of an influence … Continue reading Do publishers add value? Maybe little, suggests preprint study of preprints
A investigation in Singapore has failed to turn up primary data that formed the basis for 11 papers from one author about special education. In addition, a forensic investigation at Noel Chia’s institution — the National Institute of Education in Singapore, part of Nanyang Technological University (NTU) — suggested that some signatures providing parental consent might not be authentic. … Continue reading Journal retracting at least nine articles by education researcher
The week at Retraction Watch featured the corrections of papers claiming that conservative beliefs were linked to psychotic traits, and a new member of our leaderboard, from philosophy. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
This week at Retraction Watch featured what may be a record for plagiarism, a paper retracted because the device researchers claimed to use hadn’t arrive in the institution yet, and a technical glitch, which meant you may have missed some of our posts. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
An investigation at Taipei Medical University found that an author made “serious mistakes” when preparing a manuscript. The journal prompted the university to investigate the paper, which looks at the role of a protein in repairing arteries after an injury. The retraction notice explains:
An author has begun the process of taking legal action against a publisher for retracting his paper. As we reported last month, John Bishop, the CEO of an independent media company called Crocels, based in Pontypridd, Wales, argues that by taking down his paper, De Gruyter defamed him and breached a contract — their agreement to publish his paper. Now, Bishop has sent the … Continue reading Lawsuit against publisher over retraction comes a step closer to reality
The week at Retraction Watch featured controversy over an economics paper, and a report of a researcher who faked more than 70 experiments. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
The week at Retraction Watch featured a discussion of why science has bigger problems than retractions, and a look at what happened when a journal decided to get tough on plagiarism. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Authors have retracted a paper from Cell after they were unable to reproduce data in two figures, compromising their confidence in some of the findings. The authors revisited their experiments after another lab was unable to replicate their data, about proteins that may play a role in lung cancer. The first author told Nature News in 2013 that … Continue reading Authors retract non-reproducible Cell paper