Less than two weeks ago, PLOS ONE published a paper about the parents of teenagers who appeared to immediately start questioning their gender identity around the time of puberty. Then the critiques flooded in. The paper — about a highly contentious issue — surveyed parents who felt that their children had suddenly started to question … Continue reading Reader outcry prompts Brown to retract press release on trans teens
The similarities between recent papers in two different journals about energy were striking — so striking that a number of people have taken to Twitter and Facebook to let the world know about them. [1415 UTC, August 29, 2018: See update at the end of this post.] One paper, “Systematic investigation of the impact of operation … Continue reading UPDATED: Elsevier retracts a paper on solar cells that appears to plagiarize a Nature journal. But the reason is…odd.
A journal has retracted a 2016 article for a litany of flaws, including plagiarism and a massive self-inflicted wound that should have obviated the first offense. According to the notice in Cardiology Research and Practice (a Hindawi title) for the paper, which compared two methods of threading a catheter into the heart’s arteries:
A cancer researcher and emeritus professor at The Ohio State University has retracted four more papers, bringing his total to nine from a single journal. The four retractions of work by Samson Jacob appear in the Journal of Biological Chemistry, from which Jacob retracted five papers in March. The original papers — one of which … Continue reading Cancer researcher at OSU up to nine retractions
Retraction Watch readers may have followed our coverage of the case of Christian Kreipke, a former Wayne State researcher who was recently barred from U.S. Federal funding for five years. That punishment followed years of allegations and court cases, along with half a dozen retractions. The case has been complicated, to say the least, and … Continue reading Are you liable for misconduct by scientific collaborators? What a recent court decision could mean for scientists
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 departure of a professor in Glasgow amidst three retraction; … Continue reading Weekend reads: Why rhetoric and self-censorship is bad for science; an author threatens to sue his critics; why whistleblowing is critical
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 story of a journal that took 13 months to … Continue reading Weekend reads: A gold star in astronomy; leading journals underrepresent women in photos; how papers can mislead
Evelyne Decullier & Hervé Maisonneuve have been studying retractions for a long time. They’ve looked at how long retractions take to show up in PubMed, and five years ago they published a paper on the quality of retraction notices — and how well they were disseminated — in 2008. Now, they’ve repeated that analysis for … Continue reading Have retraction notices improved over time?
After a scientist was found guilty of misconduct at one university, a new institution asked to take over his grant and put him in charge of it. But the new institution — the Morehouse School of Medicine, in Atlanta, Georgia — denies they ever employed him.
We’ve covered a number of stories about scientific whistleblowers here at Retraction Watch, so readers will likely be familiar with what often happens to them: Their motives are questioned, they are ostracized or pushed out of labs, or even accused of misconduct themselves. But there’s more to it, says Kathy Ahern in a recent paper … Continue reading How institutions gaslight whistleblowers — and what can be done