Brian Wansink, the Cornell food marketing researcher who announced his resignation yesterday and has been found to have committed misconduct by the university, admits to mistakes and poor record-keeping in a statement released today. But he insists that there was “no fraud, no intentional misreporting, no plagiarism, or no misappropriation.” (See entire statement below.)
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 look at authors who publish once every five days, … Continue reading Weekend reads: Top researchers resign over publishing issues; organized crime meets publishing; infamous fraudster rides in on a horse
Journals have retracted all but 19 of the 313 tainted papers linked to three of the most notorious fraudsters in science, with only stragglers left in the literature. But editors and publishers have been less diligent when it comes to delivering optimal retraction notices for the affected articles. That’s the verdict of a new analysis … Continue reading When it comes to retracting papers by the world’s most prolific scientific fraudsters, journals have room for improvement
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
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 collaboration with Undark looking at how scientists who commit … Continue reading Weekend reads: How to get away with scientific fraud; what’s wrong with nutrition research; a second chance after misconduct
In 2012, investigations found that researcher Yoshitaka Fujii had fabricated well in excess of 100 papers, and recommended scores of retractions. Yet years later, publishers are still cleaning the literature of his problematic work. For anyone not familiar the Fujii case: After researchers raised concerns about Fujii’s work, an anesthesiologist used statistical tools to … Continue reading What took more than five years? Elsevier retracts 20 papers by world’s most prolific fraudster
In 2009, a university announced a prominent researcher in the field of protein crystallography had likely fabricated nearly a dozen protein structures. Nine years later, the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has upheld the results — and announced a relatively long sanction, by the agency’s standards. Today, the ORI placed a 10-year ban on … Continue reading Infamous case of fraud by protein crystallographer ends in 10-year funding ban
The week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of a paper on homeopathy whose authors had been arrested; news about 30 retractions for an engineer in South Korea; and a story about how two stem cell researchers who left Harvard under a cloud are being recommended for roles at Italy’s NIH. Here’s what was happening … Continue reading Weekend reads: No reproducibility crisis?; greatest corrections of all time; an archaeology fraud
Title: Homocysteine as a predictive factor for hip fracture in elderly women with Parkinson’s disease What Caught Our Attention: In a letter to the editor, researchers led by Mark Bolland recently outlined the many reasons why a study by Yoshihiro Sato and colleagues in The American Journal of Medicine was “unreliable,” including evidence that the … Continue reading Caught Our Notice: No retraction for “likely fraudulent” study
Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, would you consider a tax-deductible donation to support it? The week at Retraction Watch featured the story of how two highly cited papers turned out to be wrong; a big prize for a researcher who has been dogged by … Continue reading Weekend reads: 20th anniversary of a fraud; uses and misuses of doubt; how common is scooping?