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:
New evidence suggests a retracted paper was felled not by intentional manipulation — as it first appeared — but by a software glitch. In 2014, we reported that Biochemical Journal had retracted a paper on suspicion it contained “shoddy Photoshopping” — someone appeared to have blacked out a control lane in one figure. Now there’s evidence … Continue reading Software glitch — not intentional manipulation — sunk immunology paper, says author
The authors of a Developmental Cell paper have retracted it after the first author admitted to manipulating and falsifying data and reagents. The problems came to light after the authors couldn’t reproduce the findings, about a mechanism underlying meiosis. When questioned about the matter, the first author of the paper, Saurav Malhotra, admitted to doctoring data and … Continue reading Dev Cell paper retracted after author admits to doctoring data
When a researcher discovered one of the images in her papers was a duplication, she asked the journal to fix it — but the journal decided to retract the paper entirely. The researcher, Suchitra Sumitran-Holgersson, is currently being investigated by the University of Gothenburg in Sweden after a number of her papers were questioned on PubPeer. She told … Continue reading Biologist under investigation asks journal to swap image, journal retracts the paper
Data manipulation in a Cell Reports paper blew the importance of a kind of bacteria out of proportion. Retracted this month — less than three months after it was published — the paper showed, according to a summary on the cover page: B. subtilis is a symbiont that resides in the gut of C. elegans and generates nitric oxide that … Continue reading Data manipulation flushes paper on gut bacteria
A team of biologists have earned a fifth retraction for a paper containing manipulated images, following an investigation by the Swedish government. Last year, the investigation found that former Uppsala University doctoral student Apiruck Watthanasurorot had manipulated figures in five papers, four of which have already been retracted. Earlier this year, we reported that his … Continue reading Biologists earn 5th retraction following Swedish investigation
Here’s a joke for all you middle-schoolers out there. How are doctored images like bad pennies? They keep cropping up! Here’s the latest one we’ve picked up: Lung Cancer has retracted a 2014 paper on the genetics of tumors after concluding the authors cribbed a figure that had appeared in a 2005 feature story in … Continue reading Cancer paper that doctored image from Science story earns retraction
Authors of a highly cited biology paper in the Journal of Cell Science (JCS) have corrected the data underlying one of the figures. The 2003 paper, “The transcription factor Slug represses E-cadherin expression and induces epithelial to mesenchymal transitions: a comparison with Snail and E47 repressors,” has been cited 566 times, according to Thomson Reuters Web … Continue reading Authors correct highly cited biology paper due to “genuine mistake”
With PubPeer and other online resources (such as PubMed Commons and our comment section), it’s never been easier for readers to raise public suspicions of published papers. But what should we do when we learn about potential problems in papers that are decades old, and all of the authors are deceased? That’s the question we’re asking … Continue reading Poll: Should there be a statute of limitation on retractions?
A researcher who studies how others communicate is struggling with his own communications: Peter J. Schulz has lost two book chapters for misappropriating the work of others, and is under investigation by his university. Although the publisher believes the errors were unintentional, the retractions have prompted it to stop selling the books altogether. Schulz now has a total of … Continue reading Communications researcher loses two book chapters, investigated for plagiarism