Some Retraction Watch readers may recall that back in 2012, we called, in The Scientist, for the creation of a Transparency Index. Over the years, we’ve had occasional interest from others in that concept, and some good critiques, but we noted at the time that we did not have the bandwidth to create it ourselves. … Continue reading Has reproducibility improved? Introducing the Transparency and Rigor Index
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: A new member of the 100-retraction club; A reviewer caught … Continue reading Weekend reads: An ugly fight in nutrition research; embezzling scientists; eyebrow-raising papers in China
The U.S. Office of Research Integrity has found a former post-doc at the University of Massachusetts Medical School guilty of misconduct stemming from falsification of data. The finding comes more than two years after a retraction referred to an investigation at U Mass. The ORI said Ozgur Tataroglu, who worked as a neurobiologist at the … Continue reading Former UMass post-doc faked data, says federal watchdog
A Federal court in California has ruled in favor of the popular training program CrossFit in its lawsuit against a nonprofit group — a competitor in fitness training — awarding the workout company nearly $4 million in sanctions. Why are you reading about this case on Retraction Watch, you might ask? Well, at the heart … Continue reading Crossfit wins $4 million sanction in lawsuit stemming from now-retracted paper
A team of researchers in Saudi Arabia, led by an ex-pat from Johns Hopkins University, has lost three papers for problems with the images in their articles. The three retractions pushed the journal — which has become a “major retraction engine” for reasons we explain here and here — over 100 for 2019. In December, … Continue reading PLOS ONE retracts a paper first flagged in 2015 — and breaks the 100 retraction barrier for 2019
A team of physicists in India has notched their third retraction for problematic images and other issues that also have prompted at least four corrections of their work. The authors, Sk. Shahenoor Basha, of the Solid State Ionics Laboratory at KL University in Guntur, and M.C. Rao, of Andhra Loyola College in Vijayawada, have lost … Continue reading ‘A satisfactory explanation was not provided’: Physicists in India lose third paper
The Images in Clinical Medicine section of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) is prime real estate for physicians and others wanting to share a compelling picture with their colleagues. But earlier this month, an eye specialist in Michigan saw double when he looked at the Dec. 5, 2019, installment of the feature. Depicted … Continue reading How a plagiarized eye image in the NEJM was discovered
Journal stings come in various shapes and sizes. There are the hilarious ones in which authors manage to get papers based on Seinfeld or Star Wars published. There are those that play a role in the culture wars. And then there are some on a massive scale, with statistical analyses. That’s how we’d describe the … Continue reading A ‘stress test’ for journals: What happened when authors tried to republish a Nature paper more than 600 times?
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 top retractions of 2019; Two retractions and three corrections … Continue reading Weekend reads: 100 fake professors; study on police killings retracted; false data won’t scuttle company buyout
Here’s an expression of concern that raised some eyebrows around the Retraction Watch HQ.