JAMA journals retract six papers by food marketing researcher Brian Wansink

Brian Wansink, the much-beleaguered food marketing researcher at Cornell whose work has fallen under intense scrutiny, has just had six more papers retracted, all from the JAMA family of journals. [See an update on this post; Wansink has resigned, and Cornell has found that he “committed academic misconduct.”] JAMA warned readers about the six studies … Continue reading JAMA journals retract six papers by food marketing researcher Brian Wansink

Persistence pays off for plagiarized author: emails spur retraction, sanctions against researcher

Note: This post has been updated. Here’s an object lesson for scientists who find out they’ve been ripped off by other researchers: Taking matters into your own hands can produce results.   An aggrieved author’s doggedness led to the retraction of a 2013 paper that plagiarized his work, along with the revocation of a doctoral … Continue reading Persistence pays off for plagiarized author: emails spur retraction, sanctions against researcher

When it comes to authorship, how prolific is too prolific?

One of the suggestions we get regularly here at Retraction Watch is something along the lines of “This researcher publishes too much. You should look into that.” But how much is too much? The phenomenon was the subject of a 2015 paper. It’s also the subject of a new article in Nature by John Ioannidis, … Continue reading When it comes to authorship, how prolific is too prolific?

Weekend reads: An article on a controversial topic just disappears; mass resignations from a nutrition journal; the likely mistaken history of the vibrator

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. This week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of happiness, an apology from a journal, and … Continue reading Weekend reads: An article on a controversial topic just disappears; mass resignations from a nutrition journal; the likely mistaken history of the vibrator

Weekend reads: China’s black market in publishing; no fraud in NgAgo gene editing work, says university; predatory journal crackdown

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 high-profile paper about cataract surgery and the risk of … Continue reading Weekend reads: China’s black market in publishing; no fraud in NgAgo gene editing work, says university; predatory journal crackdown

Reader outcry prompts Brown to retract press release on trans teens

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

UPDATED: Elsevier retracts a paper on solar cells that appears to plagiarize a Nature journal. But the reason is…odd.

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.

Hello, reviewers? How did a study manage to say it was randomized, but also that it wasn’t?

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:

Cancer researcher at OSU up to nine retractions

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

Are you liable for misconduct by scientific collaborators? What a recent court decision could mean for scientists

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