A former veterinary scientist at the University of Maryland has been found guilty of misconduct, including fabrication of data, by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI). According to ORI:
Over the years, many papers have cited the work of Retraction Watch, whether a blog post, an article we’ve written for another outlet, or our database. Here’s a selection. Know of one we’ve missed? Let us know at [email protected]. Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like … Continue reading Papers that cite Retraction Watch
Following five years of criticism, a group of researchers based at Stanford and elsewhere have retracted a 2006 paper in Nature for “image anomalies.” The notice for “Lysyl oxidase is essential for hypoxia-induced metastasis” reads:
The journal Artificial Cells, Nanomedicine, and Biotechnology has attached expressions of concern to 13 papers published in 2019 that a group of sleuths have flagged for potentially being from a paper mill. In February, Elisabeth Bik wrote on her blog: Based on the resemblance of the Western blot bands to tadpoles (the larval stage of … Continue reading Journal slaps 13 expressions of concern on papers suspected of being from a paper mill
The journal Diabetes has retracted two 2006 papers by a group of researchers in Germany whose work has long been the subject of concerns about image duplication and manipulation. The first author of the articles is Kathrin Maedler, a prominent diabetes specialist at the University of Bremen, where she’d been a named professor but lost … Continue reading Tired of waiting for a university, a publisher commissions its own investigation — and retracts two papers
A team of researchers in Saudi Arabia, led by an ex-pat from Johns Hopkins University, has lost three papers for problems with the images in their articles. The three retractions pushed the journal — which has become a “major retraction engine” for reasons we explain here and here — over 100 for 2019. In December, … Continue reading PLOS ONE retracts a paper first flagged in 2015 — and breaks the 100 retraction barrier for 2019
An eye journal has issued an expression of concern for a paper on glaucoma that, given the litany of problems with the data, could well have been retracted. Not least of the issues: The authors admitted to using an outside firm to conduct experiments they’d tried to pass off as having done themselves. The article, … Continue reading ‘We decided to play it safe.’ Journal doesn’t retract paper even though the authors neglected to mention that they didn’t do the experiments themselves.
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: two investigations at King’s College London that found “poor research … Continue reading Weekend reads: Is nutrition science the worst-performing science?; gender bias in peer review; the Sherlock Holmes of science fraud
A former postdoc at Johns Hopkins University has been hit by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) with a four-year ban on receiving federal research funding after being found guilty of misconduct in several studies and her doctoral dissertation. We covered problems with several of Deepti Malhotra’s papers in February of 2016. At the … Continue reading Former Johns Hopkins postdoc sanctioned by Feds for data fabrication
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 rare permanent ban on U.S. federal research funding for … Continue reading Weekend reads: Grad student who alleged discrimination dismissed; academics who play dumb; when papers cite predatory works