Allow us to explain that headline. Food Science & Nutrition has retracted a 2018 article by a group of researchers in China and Pakistan for plagiarism. The article was titled “Experimentally investigated the asparagus (Asparagus officinalis L.) drying with flat-plate collector under the natural convection indirect solar dryer.” Per the retraction notice:
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 official launch of our database of more than 18,000 … Continue reading Weekend reads: Our database of 18,000-plus retractions is launched; inside a trial gone wrong; scholarly publishers bow to censorship
Readers, this is a big day for us. We’re officially launching the Retraction Watch Database of more than 18,000 retractions, along with a six-page package of stories and infographics based on it that we developed with our partners at Science Magazine. In that package, you’ll learn about trends — some surprising, some perhaps not — … Continue reading We’re officially launching our database today. Here’s what you need to know.
Reason Description Author Unresponsive The corresponding author(s) did not respond to journal/publisher requests for response, clarification, etc., about one or more concerns/issues with a publication. RW does not apply this reason when the lack of response is only to the language or posting of a notice of correction/EOC/retraction.ion after prior contact by Journal, Publisher or … Continue reading Retraction Watch Database User Guide Appendix B: Reasons
The FDA has walked away from a 2010 rule that would have forced drug makers to disclose fabricated data to regulators. As Bloomberg Law reported last week, the FDA has withdrawn the proposed rule, “Reporting Information Regarding Falsification of Data,” which would
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 a call for more than 30 retractions by former Harvard … Continue reading Weekend reads: A whistleblower speaks; a new most-cited retracted paper; criminalizing scientific fraud?
Papers are corrected for lots of different reasons. In this guest post, Anita Bandrowski, who leads an initiative designed to help researchers identify their reagents correctly, describes one unusual reason for a correction — and explains what researchers can learn from the episode. Last December, Tianyi Wang and her colleagues published a very interesting paper … Continue reading How a typo in a catalog number led to the correction of a scientific paper — and what we can learn from that
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 questions about what should happen to a paper published by … Continue reading Weekend reads: Views on the “grievance studies” hoax; universities play “pass the harasser;” what next for NEJM?
The chief scientific officer of a cannabis product company whose stock price has been hotter than a flaming joint (sorry) was known more than 18 months ago to have committed research misconduct while at the U.S. National Institutes of Health — casting a cloud of suspicion over the firm’s operations. Marketwatch reported yesterday that the … Continue reading Chief scientific officer of a high-flying cannabis product company faked data at the NIH
Last December, a group of scientists at a biotech firm published a paper on a “miniaturized, robotic clinical laboratory.” The technique, according to the authors, “would benefit patients and physicians alike.” Nothing terribly unusual there. But what was — and what caught the eye of a Retraction Watch reader — was the name of the … Continue reading What should happen to a paper published by Theranos?