Search Results for: opaque

What happened to Joachim Boldt’s 88 papers that were supposed to be retracted?

CHICAGO — Almost two years after editors at 18 journals agreed in March 2011 to retract 88 of former retraction record holder Joachim Boldt’s papers, 10% of them hadn’t been retracted. That’s what Nadia Elia, Liz Wager, and Martin Tramer reported here Sunday in an abstract at the Seventh International Congress on Peer Review and … Continue reading What happened to Joachim Boldt’s 88 papers that were supposed to be retracted?

“Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?” New study tries to answer

The title of this post is the title of a new study in PLOS ONE by three researchers whose names Retraction Watch readers may find familiar: Grant Steen, Arturo Casadevall, and Ferric Fang. Together and separately, they’ve examined retraction trends in a number of papers we’ve covered. Their new paper tries to answer a question … Continue reading “Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?” New study tries to answer

Four papers about gaming and virtual worlds become more virtual and less reality as they’re retracted

The International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction has retracted four papers about virtual reality for reasons that aren’t quite clear. The common author of the studies is Dong-Hee Shin of Seoul’s Sungkyunkwan University. Here’s the retraction notice, which is signed by journal editors-in-chief Gavriel Salvendy and Julie Jacko:

And the award for the most self-referential abstract ever goes to…

Here at Retraction Watch, we like to dig for what lies behind sometimes opaque retraction notices. But today, thanks to Neil Martin, we have a glimpse into something a bit different: The back-and-forth between an author and his editor. In Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, Peter Reiner, of the University of British Columbia, wrote a comment on … Continue reading And the award for the most self-referential abstract ever goes to…

A model retraction in the Journal of Neurochemistry for “unexpected effect” of a filter

They say that a poor workman blames his tools. If you’re a scientist and you discover your tools don’t do exactly what you thought they did, however, the right thing to do is let other scientists relying on your work know. That’s what the University of Auckland’s Nigel Birch and colleagues did recently, after a … Continue reading A model retraction in the Journal of Neurochemistry for “unexpected effect” of a filter

Another win for transparency: JBC takes a step forward, adding details to some retraction notices

Retraction Watch readers may recall that we have been frequent critics of the Journal of Biological Chemistry (JBC) — published by the American Society for Biochemistry & Molecular Biology (ASBMB) — for their opaque retraction notices. Such notices often read simply “This article has been withdrawn by the authors.” But we are — despite what … Continue reading Another win for transparency: JBC takes a step forward, adding details to some retraction notices

Is an “article in press” “published?” A word about Elsevier’s withdrawal policy

Earlier today, we reported on the withdrawal of a paper from Research Policy, an Elsevier journal. The notice didn’t give a reason, just that the “article has been withdrawn at the request of the authors and editor.” We’ve seen a number of such opaque withdrawals from Elsevier journals, and thought it was worth some exploration. … Continue reading Is an “article in press” “published?” A word about Elsevier’s withdrawal policy

Not in my journal: Two editors take stock of misconduct in their fields — and don’t find much

Today brings two journal editorials about misconduct and retractions. They take, if we may, a bit of an optimistic and perhaps even blindered approach. In an editorial titled “Scientific misconduct occurs, but is rare,” Boston University’s Richard Primack, editor of Biological Conservation, highlights a Corrigendum of a paper by Jesus Angel Lemus, the veterinary researcher … Continue reading Not in my journal: Two editors take stock of misconduct in their fields — and don’t find much

Have you been involved in scientific fraud? Grant Steen wants to hear from you

Regular Retraction Watch readers may find the name Grant Steen familiar. Steen has published a number of important papers on retractions, most recently in PNAS. Recently, he approached us for help with what sounds like another project that is likely to increase our understanding of misconduct in science: Steen wants to gather the stories of … Continue reading Have you been involved in scientific fraud? Grant Steen wants to hear from you