The week at Retraction Watch featured the corrections of papers claiming that conservative beliefs were linked to psychotic traits, and a new member of our leaderboard, from philosophy. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Dear Retraction Watch readers: Those of you signed up for our emails for every post may have wondered why we haven’t sent you any emails since Saturday. Well, it wasn’t because we didn’t want to. We had a technical glitch, which we’ve now fixed. Apologies for that, and here are links to the posts that … Continue reading Some posts you may have missed: Impressive amounts of plagiarism; PhD revocation; a poll, and more
The week at Retraction Watch featured controversy over an economics paper, and a report of a researcher who faked more than 70 experiments. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Science has a new editor-in-chief. As of July 1st, Jeremy M. Berg will be at the helm of the family of journals published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, replacing Marcia McNutt. McNutt is leaving to become president of the National Academy of Sciences. Berg, now associate senior vice chancellor for science strategy and planning … Continue reading Science names new editor-in-chief
Scientific fraud isn’t what keeps Andrew Gelman, a professor of statistics at Columbia University in New York, up at night. Rather, it’s the sheer number of unreliable studies — uncorrected, unretracted — that have littered the literature. He tells us more, below. Whatever the vast majority of retractions are, they’re a tiny fraction of the number … Continue reading Retractions aren’t enough: Why science has bigger problems
We’ve unearthed four more retractions for Khalid Zaman, an economist who lost 16 papers in 2014 for orchestrating fake peer review. That brings Zaman’s total to 20, and ties him at the #18 spot on our leaderboard. One of the more recently discovered retractions is for fake peer review, attributed to Zaman; one is for plagiarism, and two … Continue reading Peer review scam leader now up to 20 retractions
When a computer scientist approached a journal about editing a special issue, little did the journal know he — or she — was using a stolen identity. Before the jig was up, someone posing as a researcher named Xavier Delorme had edited three articles on optimization problems for The Scientific World Journal. The scammer used a fake email address, … Continue reading Imposter edits journal in latest peer review scam
This week at Retraction Watch featured a confession about research misconduct, and a debate over whether a paper should have been retracted. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
The Open Automation and Control Systems Journal has published five items this calendar year — and all of those are retraction notices. That’s what we’re sure about. Now to what we’re not clear on in this story, which is one of a growing number of cases we’ve seen in which so-called “predatory” publishers are starting … Continue reading Confusion reigns: Are these four retractions for compromised peer review, or not?
One Friday in January, graduate student Meredyth Forbes was reviewing material for her dissertation with her mentor when she decided to make a confession. She “burst out with a statement that some of the data was fabricated,” said Edward Burns, research integrity officer at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, where Forbes worked. It was, Burns told Retraction Watch: