Could a scientific paper ever be considered an advertisement? That was the question posed to a Tokyo court, in a criminal case where prosecutors argued — at the behest of Japan’s ministry of health — that a peer-reviewed paper containing faked data should be considered “fraudulent or exaggerated advertising” under that country’s laws. In that case, … Continue reading Could bogus scientific results be considered false advertising?
The week at Retraction Watch featured the launch of an award for doing the right thing, and a hijacked journal getting its name back. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
The week at Retraction Watch featured a new record for most retractions by a single journal, and an impassioned plea from a biostatistician for journals to clean up their act. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
The week at Retraction Watch featured a study of why researchers commit misconduct, and the story of former Northwestern scientist who sued the university for defamation. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
The week at Retraction Watch featured a predatory journal sting involving a fake disorder from Seinfeld, and a study with disturbing findings about how retracted papers are cited. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Starting to get bored of stings designed to expose the well-documented flaws in scientific publishing? Yeah, sometimes we are too. But another one just came across our desks, and we couldn’t help ourselves. John McCool is neither a researcher nor a urologist. When received an unsolicited invitation to submit a paper to an open-access urology journal, … Continue reading Hello…Newman: Yet another sting pranks a predatory journal, Seinfeld-style
Jana Rieger is a researcher in Edmonton, Alberta. And now, she’s also a novelist. Her new book, “A Course in Deception,” draws on her experiences in science, and weaves a tale of how greed and pressures to publish can lead to even worse outcomes than the sort we write about at Retraction Watch. We interviewed Rieger … Continue reading “A Course In Deception:” Scientist’s novel takes on research misconduct
From time to time, academics will devise a “sting” operation, designed to expose journals’ weaknesses. We’ve seen scientists submit a duplicated paper, a deeply flawed weight loss paper designed to generate splashy headlines (it worked), and an entirely fake paper – where even the author calls it a “pile of dung.” So it wasn’t a … Continue reading The latest sting: Will predatory journals hire “Dr. Fraud”?
A scientist who sued his employer for millions of dollars has earned two more retractions, for papers that had already been flagged by the journal. By our count, Rakesh Kumar now has five retractions and multiple corrections. Kumar sued his employer, George Washington University, for $8 million, alleging emotional distress when they put him on leave … Continue reading Scientist who sued university earns two more retractions, bringing total to five
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: