This week at Retraction Watch featured an ironic case of what doesn’t make a journal great, and the retraction of a paper from JAMA. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Despite the fact that a former employee of the Oregon Health Authority falsified 56 case reports that were included in a report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a re-analysis has found that the results of the report remain valid. The report included information about 10,342 cases of potentially deadly infections due to Clostridium difficile, … Continue reading CDC: Falsified data did not affect C. diff results
Another retraction makes 32.5 for former accounting professor James E. Hunton, and earns him the #10 slot on our leaderboard. Though he resigned from his position at Bentley University in 2012, the story didn’t end there: In 2014, a university investigation found he’d committed misconduct in two papers. The, in June 2015, he notched 25 retractions all at once. The … Continue reading Former accounting prof adds his 32nd retraction
The week at Retraction Watch featured the unmasking of the people behind PubPeer, and an editor doing the right thing following a high-profile retraction. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
The week at Retraction Watch featured the results of a massive replication study, yet another retraction for Diederik Stapel, and a messy situation at PLOS. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
The journal that recently published a bogus study showing the health benefits of chocolate has been kicked out of a membership organization for open access journals. According to the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the International Archives of Medicine was removed from the list of member journals August 20, due to “suspected editorial misconduct by … Continue reading Journal that published bogus chocolate study delisted from open access directory
The week at Retraction Watch featured revelations of yet more fake peer reviews, bringing the retraction total to 250. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Editors at BioMed Central have taken the unusual step of updating a retraction notice after an investigation found the authors were not responsible for a peer review process gone awry. The paper is one of dozens of other papers retracted in March for fake peer reviews. That month, the paper “Clinical application of contrast enhanced ultrasound to … Continue reading BMC editors update retraction after investigation clears authors of faking peer reviews
A third retraction — and a notice of concern — have emerged from the investigation into a husband and wife research team at the University of Toronto that found evidence of faked images and duplicated data. The problem, according to the latest retraction note for Sylvia Asa and Shereen Ezzat, in the Journal of Clinical Investigation: Portions of the … Continue reading Canadian researchers in legal battle over investigation object to third retraction
Five years ago today, we wrote our first post, “Why write a blog about retractions?” And although every year since has been terrific, this year we have the most to celebrate so far. Here are some highlights: