Search Results for: fraud

Pay to play? Three new ways companies are subverting academic publishing

Some recent communications from companies involved in academic publishing have some journal representatives worried. In one instance, a manuscript editing company offered to pay an editor to help its papers get published in his journal; in another, a research ethics company threatened to investigate all of an author’s papers if he or she didn’t donate … Continue reading Pay to play? Three new ways companies are subverting academic publishing

Weekend reads: How to speed up peer review; the whipsaw of science news headlines; data-sharing stance sparks resignation request

The week at Retraction Watch featured more fallout from a citation-boosting episode, and a look at when animal research becomes unnecessary and cruel. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Researcher who lost whistleblower lawsuit logs 4 more retractions

A brain journal has retracted four papers by a researcher due to image duplications that the university uncovered during an investigation into his work. According to the retraction notice, Wayne State University found that Christian Kreipke had used several images in these articles “to represent different results in grant proposals and/or poster presentations,” and that the data were unreliable. … Continue reading Researcher who lost whistleblower lawsuit logs 4 more retractions

Weekend reads: They committed misconduct, then earned $100 million in grants; collateral publishing damage

The week at Retraction Watch featured a frank admission of error by a Nobel Prize winner, and a look at five “diseases” plaguing science. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Unusual: Neurology removes author dinged for misconduct from 2016 paper

Neurology has partially retracted a 2016 paper, replacing a figure and removing the author who contributed it after he was found guilty of misconduct. The journal has replaced the figure with a new one that confirmed the findings of the original, and swapped the name of Andrew Cullinane with the scientist who constructed the new … Continue reading Unusual: Neurology removes author dinged for misconduct from 2016 paper

Weekend reads: Misbehaving medical academics; are phase I trials ethical?; the “sin” of mistakes

The week at Retraction Watch featured revelations about what happens when researchers unwittingly use a tool without permission, and a look at why women peer review less often than men. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

What turned a cancer researcher into a literature watchdog?

Sometime in the middle of 2015, Jennifer Byrne, professor of molecular oncology at the University of Sydney, began her journey from cancer researcher to a scientific literature sleuth, seeking out potentially problematic papers. The first step was when she noticed several papers that contained a mistake in a DNA construct which, she believed, meant the … Continue reading What turned a cancer researcher into a literature watchdog?

Weekend reads: Citation cartels; less authorship credit for women; theft by peer reviewers

The week at Retraction Watch featured a discussion of whether peer reviewers should replicate experiments, and a look at whether social psychology really has a retraction problem. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Journal retracts surgery study with data “not intended for use in research”

A journal has retracted a surgery study by researchers at Brown University after noticing it included data that was not intended for research purposes. (Incidentally, the data were collected by the publisher of the journal.) Ingrid Philbert, managing editor of the Journal of Graduate Medical Education — which published the paper — told Retraction Watch … Continue reading Journal retracts surgery study with data “not intended for use in research”

ORI misconduct findings fell in 2016. Why? We ask the director

Every year, the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) issues a series of findings against researchers it has determined committed fraud of some kind. In contrast to many agencies such as the National Science Foundation and around the world, the ORI names the offender, describes the offense, and states the penalty – often a temporary … Continue reading ORI misconduct findings fell in 2016. Why? We ask the director