A new journal is offering something we’ve never seen before: A cash reward to corresponding authors of papers it publishes. Normally, in the case of open-access journals, researchers have to pay article processing charges (APCs). But Minimally Invasive Surgical Oncology, an open-access journal launched at the end of last year, flips the typical narrative — … Continue reading Journal: Publish here, and we’ll pay you $500
In 2016, three researchers published data they had collected on a series of devastating earthquakes that hit Japan earlier that year. But, in late September 2017, one of the authors—Hiroyuki Goto—revealed that the Kumamoto Earthquake data contained “wide reaching errors”—and an outside expert had warned him the data might be problematic nine months earlier. Goto, … Continue reading Researcher apologizes for ignoring early warnings about earthquake data
A journal has withdrawn an essay that called for a return to colonialism after the editor received alleged threats tied to the article. Soon after Third World Quarterly published the controversial essay, readers began to object. When the journal defended its decision, 15 editorial board members resigned in response. More than 10,000 people signed a … Continue reading “Credible threats of personal violence” against editor prompt withdrawal of colonialism paper
A journal is planning to retract a paper that purported to link a component of vaccines to autism in mice. The paper, about the effects of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines on the immune response in the brains of mice, is the second retraction for co-authors Christopher Shaw and Lucija Tomljenovic, of the University of British … Continue reading Journal to retract paper called “anti-vaccine pseudoscience”
Fake peer reviews are a problem in academic publishing. A big problem. Many publishers are taking proactive steps to limit the effects, but massive purges of papers tainted by problematic reviews continue to occur; to date, more than 500 papers have been retracted for this reason. In an effort to help, Clarivate Analytics is unveiling a … Continue reading Can you spot a fake? New tool aims to help journals identify fake reviews
The week at Retraction Watch featured a look at retractions in China, and an expression of concern for a paper co-authored by a controversial journalist in Australia. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Earlier this month, we reported the retraction of several papers published by researchers with appointments at both the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) and the San Francisco Veterans Administration (VA) Medical Center, led by a prominent urologist. Recently, we obtained the letters sent to the journals that retracted the papers, shedding some additional light … Continue reading UCSF-VA letters to journals offer insight into misconduct investigations
Two journals have retracted papers by a biologist who was recently found guilty of misconduct by his former employer, the University of Colorado Denver, bringing the total to five. The investigation report by UC Denver, which we obtained earlier this year via a public records request, had recommended one of the two newest retractions, which … Continue reading Two more retractions for former US prof who altered dozens of images
The week at Retraction Watch featured a battle over psychologists and torture, a case of misconduct at Harvard, allegations of bribery, and a lawsuit against the New York Times. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Earlier this year, the University of California, San Francisco and the San Francisco Veterans Administration Medical Center teamed up to write a letter. Addressed to the editorial office at the American Association of Cancer Research (AACR), the letter, parts of which have been published in a retraction notice, contained information concerning two papers on genetic … Continue reading UCSF, VA investigations find “clear evidence” of misconduct in cancer papers