Search Results for: stem cell

What happened after a journal decided to get tough on plagiarism?

In July 2015, DNA and Cell Biology began routinely scanning manuscript submissions for plagiarism using iThenticate; since then, it’s rejected between four and six manuscripts each month for that reason alone. Additional submissions have been rejected after the journal realized the authors had digitally altered figures. The level of misconduct “shocked” editor-in-chief Carol Shoshkes Reiss, as … Continue reading What happened after a journal decided to get tough on plagiarism?

Doing the right thing: Authors share data, retract when colleague finds error

A pair of chemical engineers has retracted a paper after another researcher was unable to replicate their work, in a case that we consider an example of doing the right thing. Dennis Prieve, at Carnegie Mellon University, was interested in applying the paper — on how systems of molecules known as “reverse micelles” conduct electrical charge — to his own … Continue reading Doing the right thing: Authors share data, retract when colleague finds error

In precedent break, BMJ explains why it rejected controversial “weekend effect” paper

After the reviewer of a rejected paper was publicly outed, the BMJ has taken the unusual step of explaining why it chose not to publish the paper. The paper — eventually published in another journal — raised hackles for suggesting that there is no “weekend effect,” or a higher mortality rate in hospitals on Saturday … Continue reading In precedent break, BMJ explains why it rejected controversial “weekend effect” paper

Weekend reads: Peer review, troubled from the start; how to survive as a whistle-blower

The week at Retraction Watch featured news that one in 25 papers in a massive screen includes inappropriate image manipulation, and of the eighth and ninth retractions for a neuroscience team. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Authors retract, replace highly cited JAMA Psych paper for “pervasive errors”

Authors have retracted a highly cited JAMA Psychiatry study about depression after failing to account for some patient recoveries, among other mistakes. It’s a somewhat unusual notice — it explains that the paper has been retracted and replaced with a new, corrected version. The study, which included 452 adults with major depressive disorder, concluded that cognitive therapy … Continue reading Authors retract, replace highly cited JAMA Psych paper for “pervasive errors”

JACS imaging paper “under editorial review” has been replicated, says author

The author of a paper “under editorial review” at the Journal of the American Chemical Society has told us the results the paper have been replicated, contrary to claims made by a former member of her lab. What’s more, the author said she has submitted a correction to the paper, which is currently flagged with an expression … Continue reading JACS imaging paper “under editorial review” has been replicated, says author

Weekend reads: PubPeer = vigilantes?; why journals cost what they do; who publishes most

The week at Retraction Watch featured a retraction from Nature, and a discussion of what it means to be an author on a paper with thousands of them. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Seven papers flagged earlier for fake reviews now retracted by Elsevier

Elsevier has now retracted the seven papers it flagged in October as being affected by fake peer reviews. If you’re not keeping track, we are: We have logged a total of about 300 retractions for fake peer review, in which some aspect of the peer-review process becomes compromised — for instance, in the case of the … Continue reading Seven papers flagged earlier for fake reviews now retracted by Elsevier

Environmental journal pulls two papers for “compromised” peer review

Environmental Geochemistry and Health has retracted two papers after an investigation suggested that the peer-review process had been compromised. In case you’re counting, we’ve now logged approximately 300 retractions stemming from likely faked or rigged peer review. The retraction note — which is the same for both papers — explains a bit more about the situation:

NEJM corrects 3 papers after prominent cancer scientist left off credit for breakthrough

The New England Journal of Medicine has corrected three highly cited papers to credit researchers who played a role in the work. The papers describe a treatment in which engineered T cells fight leukemia, originally hailed as a “major advance” in the New York Times. Since the first paper appeared in 2011, co-author Carl June at the University of Pennsylvania has received more … Continue reading NEJM corrects 3 papers after prominent cancer scientist left off credit for breakthrough