A group of authors published two articles about one study on pain during childbirth, so one journal is retracting it. This may seem like a standard case of salami slicing — but this one comes with a nearly 600-word commentary co-authored by the editors of the two journals in question. The commentary lays out — … Continue reading Labor pains study brought into this world twice
If audits work for the Internal Revenue Service, could they also work for science? We’re pleased to present a guest post from Viraj Mane, a life sciences commercialization manager in Toronto, and Amy Lossie at the National Institutes of Health, who have a unique proposal for how to improve the quality of papers: Random audits of … Continue reading Do scientists need audits?
A recent recipient of an early career award now under investigation by granting agency EMBO told us today that last week’s retraction in Nature Genetics stemmed solely from an “embarrassing error,” and she hopes to republish the data in a new paper. Last week was rough for Sonia Melo: Nature Genetics retracted one of her papers, … Continue reading “There was no effort to commit fraud,” says EMBO awardee under investigation
Last Friday we resurrected a previous feature of Retraction Watch, compiling five retractions that appeared to be simple acts of duplication. This week, we spotlight another five unrelated retractions which, as we said last week, cover duplications in which the same – or some of the same – authors published the same – or some of the same – … Continue reading You’ve been dupe’d: Data so nice, you see them twice
EMBO has taken back an award given to beleaguered plant biologist Olivier Voinnet in 2009, and is investigating a recent grantee who had a paper retracted from Nature Genetics yesterday. The European Molecular Biology Organization (EMBO) “promotes excellence in the life sciences” in Europe, in part by awarding prizes to promising young scientists. Voinnet and Sonia Melo earned their awards by … Continue reading EMBO takes back Voinnet’s award, investigates other awardee who just lost a Nature Genetics paper
Last week, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors proposed requiring authors to share deidentified patient data underlying the published results of clinical trials within six months of publication. The proposal has earned much support but also some concerns – for example that other scientists might poach the findings, acting as the New England Journal of … Continue reading Sharing data is a good thing. But we need to consider the costs.
When our co-founders launched the site in 2010, they wondered whether there would be enough retractions to write about on a regular basis. Five+ years and three full-time staffers later, and we simply don’t have the time to cover everything that comes across our desk. In 2012, we covered a group of duplication retractions in a … Continue reading You’ve been dupe’d: Meet authors who like their work so much, they publish it twice
We recently obtained court documents showing that, in September, a judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by cancer researcher Fazlul Sarkar against the University of Mississippi after it rescinded a job offer after reviewing concerns raised about his research on PubPeer. Sarkar’s connection to PubPeer will be familiar to many readers — he has also taken the site … Continue reading Lawsuit against Ole Miss for rescinded Sarkar job offer dismissed; briefs filed in PubPeer case
Questions about data and conclusions in papers by a cancer researcher at the University of Maryland have led to three expressions of concern in the Journal of Biological Chemistry. The notices follow four retractions — two for image duplications and two for unknown reasons — for Anil K. Jaiswal. The three papers under notice are all on mechanisms … Continue reading Three expressions of concern added to cancer researcher’s notice list
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU) has dismissed an anonymous accusation against economist Peter Nijkamp and two of his colleagues, including one of his graduate students, regarding issues related to “data acquisition and data processing.” The announcement, released last week, determined the latest complaint was “unfounded:”