Search Results for: fraud

Nearly two years after a university asked for retractions, two journals have done nothing

How long should a retraction take? That’s a complex question, of course, depending on how long the alleged issues with a paper take to be investigated, whether authors — and their lawyers — fight tooth-and-nail against a retraction, and other factors. But once a university officially requests a retraction, how long should one take? The … Continue reading Nearly two years after a university asked for retractions, two journals have done nothing

UK House of Commons committee wants to make sure “university investigations into research misconduct are handled appropriately”

As Retraction Watch readers may recall, the UK’s House of Commons Science and Technology Committee has been holding an inquiry into scientific misconduct for well over a year. During that inquiry, we submitted written evidence including some statistics about how the UK’s retraction rate compared to other countries, and our Ivan Oransky gave oral testimony … Continue reading UK House of Commons committee wants to make sure “university investigations into research misconduct are handled appropriately”

“The final verdict:” Lancet retracts two papers by Macchiarini

The Lancet chapter of the Paolo Macchiarini saga appears to finally be over. In an editorial titled “The final verdict on Paolo Macchiarini: guilty of misconduct,” the editors of the journal announce that they are retracting two papers by the now-disgraced surgeon and colleagues “after receiving requests to do so from the new President of … Continue reading “The final verdict:” Lancet retracts two papers by Macchiarini

Reports of misconduct investigations can tell us a lot. Here are more than a dozen of them.

Fakery. Ignored whistleblowers. Sabotage. Subterfuge. Reading reports of institutional investigations into allegations of misconduct can sometimes feel like reading a spy novel about science. And we’ve read a lot of them. In a recent post that drew from one such report, we wrote: Whenever we learn about misconduct cases at public universities, we file such … Continue reading Reports of misconduct investigations can tell us a lot. Here are more than a dozen of them.

Weekend reads: The fall of a Crossfit science watchdog; a CDC retraction about suicides; “superb subterfuge” by predatory journals

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 critic with more than two dozen retractions; why twenty … Continue reading Weekend reads: The fall of a Crossfit science watchdog; a CDC retraction about suicides; “superb subterfuge” by predatory journals

A journal decided to correct, rather than retract, a paper that contained “potentially contentious advice.” Do you agree with their call?

In March, a journal published a paper about blood sugar levels in newborns that caused an immediate outcry from outside experts, who were concerned it contained a sentence that could be potentially harmful if misinterpreted by doctors. Recently, the journal explained — in impressive detail — why it’s not retracting the paper. That, of course, … Continue reading A journal decided to correct, rather than retract, a paper that contained “potentially contentious advice.” Do you agree with their call?

Meet the scientific sleuths: More than two dozen who’ve had an impact on the scientific literature

Over the years, we have written about a number of the sleuths who, on their own time and often at great risks to their careers or finances, have looked for issues in the scientific literature. Here’s a sampling:

Weekend reads: How to kill zombie citations; wanted: 6,000 new journals; does peer review matter anymore?

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 retraction and replacement of a diet study in the … Continue reading Weekend reads: How to kill zombie citations; wanted: 6,000 new journals; does peer review matter anymore?

Congrats! Your paper was accepted. (Except if the acceptance letter was forged.)

You’ve worked hard on your research, spent time writing it up, and finally, the good news comes: The journal you submitted to has accepted your paper. Trouble is, for multiple authors, that good news turns bad — the acceptance was fake. Recently, in Scholarly Kitchen, Angela Cochran,  Associate Publisher, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), … Continue reading Congrats! Your paper was accepted. (Except if the acceptance letter was forged.)

Weekend reads: Ghostwritten thesis apps; discriminatory authorship rules; group up to 14 retractions

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 featured a paper by Kim Kardashian, four retractions for an author who … Continue reading Weekend reads: Ghostwritten thesis apps; discriminatory authorship rules; group up to 14 retractions