The week at Retraction Watch featured three new ways companies are trying to scam authors, and a look at why one journal is publishing a running tally of their retractions. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Two blog posts are shining additional light on a recent retraction that included some unanswered questions — namely, the identity of the researcher who admitted to manipulating the results. To recap: Psychological Science recently announced it was retracting a paper about the relationship between the words you use and your mood after a graduate student tampered … Continue reading “Hindsight’s a bitch:” Colleagues dissect painful retraction
Some recent communications from companies involved in academic publishing have some journal representatives worried. In one instance, a manuscript editing company offered to pay an editor to help its papers get published in his journal; in another, a research ethics company threatened to investigate all of an author’s papers if he or she didn’t donate … Continue reading Pay to play? Three new ways companies are subverting academic publishing
Researchers have retracted two 2016 papers from the same journal which were published without the permission of the supervising scientists. According to the retraction notices, the two Applied Materials & Interfaces articles were “published without the full knowledge or consent of the principal investigators” who guided the research, but are not named in the notices. The papers share … Continue reading Two retracted papers were published behind bosses’ backs
The week at Retraction Watch featured more fallout from a citation-boosting episode, and a look at when animal research becomes unnecessary and cruel. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
The week at Retraction Watch featured a frank admission of error by a Nobel Prize winner, and a look at five “diseases” plaguing science. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
The week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of a psychology paper because of manipulation by an unnamed graduate student, and a tale about the cost of being a whistleblower, even when you’re successful. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
A group of researchers has lost two papers due to “high degrees of similarity with previously published works,” according to the notices. The authors are objecting to the retractions, however, arguing the journal never gave them an opportunity to show their work is different from the previous papers. Both papers were published in the International Journal of Plastics … Continue reading Authors contest retractions for “high degrees of similarity” with previous papers
Ever since Kellyanne Conway, counselor to U.S. President Donald Trump, used the term “alternative facts” on Meet The Press earlier this month, the term — an awful euphemism for falsehoods, as many have pointed out — has become a meme. And like every new field, alternative facts needs its own journal. Enter the Twitter feed for the … Continue reading Welcome to the Journal of Alternative Facts. They’re the greatest! And winning!
The week at Retraction Watch featured revelations about what happens when researchers unwittingly use a tool without permission, and a look at why women peer review less often than men. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: