The week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of 11 papers by a controversial researcher in Italy, and a look at the controversy over lead in the water supply. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
How should scientists think about papers that have undergone what appears to be a cursory peer review? Perhaps the papers were reviewed in a day — or less — or simply green-lighted by an editor, without an outside look. That’s a question Dorothy Bishop, an Oxford University autism researcher, asked herself when she noticed some … Continue reading Poll: What to do when peer review feels inadequate?
Alfredo Fusco, the researcher in Italy who is under criminal investigation and has had seven papers retracted, has lost yet another study. The investigation, which came to light in late 2013, had focused on eight papers thought to demonstrate evidence of image manipulation. The latest paper, in the European Journal of Cancer, studied mice with … Continue reading Cancer researcher under investigation in Italy notches eighth retraction
The week at Retraction Watch featured an adventure in irony as a paper on plagiarism was retracted for…plagiarism, as well as another retraction for high-profile cancer research Robert Weinberg. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Robert Weinberg, a prominent cancer scientist whose papers often notch hundreds or thousands of citations, has lost a fourth paper, this time a 2009 publication in Cell. Journal Genes and Development pulled two of Weinberg’s papers in March, stating that they had retracted the 2009 study because data from several experiments was used in figures that seemed to represent … Continue reading Other shoe drops for MIT cancer researcher Robert Weinberg as Cell retraction appears
BioMed Central is retracting 43 papers, following their investigation into 50 papers that raised suspicions of fake peer review, possibly involving third-party companies selling the service. In November 2014 we wrote about fake peer reviews for Nature; at that point there had been about 110 retractions across several journals. The addition of 16 retractions by Elsevier for … Continue reading BioMed Central retracting 43 papers for fake peer review
A group of geologists in China have lost their paper on the aerodynamics of sand particles because the article was mashed together from previous publications. The article, “The influence of sand diameter and wind velocity on sand particle lift-off and incident angles in the windblown sand flux,” appeared in the May 2013 issue of Sedimentary … Continue reading Castle made of sand: Self-plagiarism washes away paper on dune particles
A group of researchers at two universities in South Korea have retracted two cell biology papers featuring retinoic acid. The most recent retraction appears in the Journal of Biological Chemistry. Although, in typical JBC fashion, the reason for it is anyone’s guess. Here’s the unhelpful notice for “ASXL1 represses retinoic acid receptor-mediated transcription through associating … Continue reading Cell biologists in South Korea retract two papers
This week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of yet another spoof article, and the temporary shutdown of a journal. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
In January, we were accused of bullying. We were writing about a researcher who had 16 papers retracted for fake peer reviews; when we found out he was trying to find a new job in academia, we posted a follow-up that linked to his CV. Some commenters called the post “bullying,” “unethical,” and “over the … Continue reading Do fraudsters deserve a second chance?