Search Results for: opaque

“Apparently, the bureaucracy at Elsevier is the most cumbersome thing in the world:” Journal editor

We recently came across a paper in Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, an Elsevier title, that had been temporarily removed without explanation. While we see a fair number of such opaque notices from Elsevier — and have written about why we think they’re a bad idea — we took interest in this one because the … Continue reading “Apparently, the bureaucracy at Elsevier is the most cumbersome thing in the world:” Journal editor

Which countries have the most retractions, for which reasons?

One of the questions we often get — but are careful to answer with some version of “we don’t know because we don’t have a denominator” — is how retraction rates vary by scientific field and country. We’ve noticed that the reasons for retraction seem to vary among countries, but didn’t really have the data. … Continue reading Which countries have the most retractions, for which reasons?

Pharmaceutical journal retracts antibiotics paper with dodgy data, with an unclear notice

AAPS PharmSciTech, a journal of the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists, has retracted a 2013 paper by a group from India. The reason appears to be manipulated data, although the wording of the notice leaves that open to interpretation. The article, “Design and Formulation Technique of a Novel Drug Delivery System for Azithromycin and Its … Continue reading Pharmaceutical journal retracts antibiotics paper with dodgy data, with an unclear notice

“Why Growing Retractions Are (Mostly) a Good Sign”: New study makes the case

Retraction Watch readers will no doubt be familiar with the fact that retraction rates are rising, but one of the unanswered questions has been whether that increase is due to more misconduct, greater awareness, or some combination of the two. In a new paper in PLOS Medicine, Daniele Fanelli, who has studied misconduct and related … Continue reading “Why Growing Retractions Are (Mostly) a Good Sign”: New study makes the case

Big trouble in little China: Two looks at what warps scientific publishing there

The press corps has turned its attention to scientific publishing in China this week. Here’s Naomi Ching’s lede — that’s how we spell it in journalism — from Nautilus: You may have heard that Chinese researchers are not very well compensated, compared to their Western counterparts. What you might not know is that they can … Continue reading Big trouble in little China: Two looks at what warps scientific publishing there

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

How well do journals publicize retractions?

A new paper in BMC Research Notes looks at the retraction class of 2008, and finds journals’ handling of them less than optimal. Evelynne Decullier and colleagues — including Hervé Maisonneuve, who was helpful to us for a recent post — found:

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…