The week at Retraction Watch featured an unusual warning from the New England Journal of Medicine, and the withdrawal of a paper over a fear of legal threats. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
File this under “not a surprise.” After the authors of a paper entitled “The conceptual penis as a social construct” confessed it was a hoax immediately after publication, the publisher has retracted it. The notice is sparse: This article has been retracted by the publisher. For more information please see the statement on this article. … Continue reading Publisher retracts “conceptual penis” hoax article
Less than a week after publishing a much-discussed hoax paper, a scholarly publisher has acknowledged that it had chosen reviewers for the paper whose “expertise did not fully align with this subject matter.” The subject matter: that the penis should not be considered an anatomical organ, but more as a concept – “a gender-performative, highly fluid social … Continue reading Publisher blames bad choice of reviewer for publication of hoax paper on penis as “social construct”
The week at Retraction Watch featured a survey of researchers in China with an alarming result, and asked whether philosophy has a plagiarism problem. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
The week at Retraction Watch featured a look at a school where everyone has published in possibly predatory journals, and doubts about a study of doing math unconsciously. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
A disability journal has retracted a paper supposedly penned by a man with severe disabilities, citing duplication. Although the reason for the retraction may sound run-of-the-mill, this situation is far from ordinary. The author, known as DMan Johnson — or simply “D.J.” — has cerebral palsy, and was communicating using a controversial technique called “facilitated communication” with Anna … Continue reading After researcher is convicted of sexual assault, journal retracts her co-author’s paper
The week at Retraction Watch featured a look at how long journals take to respond to retraction requests, and news of a $10 million settlement for research misconduct allegations. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
U.S. Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch appears to have borrowed material from multiple authors in his 2006 book, according to a new analysis by Politico. This week, U.S. lawmakers are going head-to-head over the nomination of Gorsuch to the highest court in the land. Although the book is only one snippet of Gorsuch’s vast portfolio … Continue reading Supreme Court nominee Gorsuch lifted from earlier works in his scholarly papers: Report
The week at Retraction Watch featured three new ways companies are trying to scam authors, and a look at why one journal is publishing a running tally of their retractions. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Scientists are always pressed for time; still, Raphael Didham of the University Western Australia was surprised when he fell upon a group of early career scientists using a spreadsheet formula to calculate whether one was obligated to accept an invitation to review a paper, based on how many manuscripts he’d submitted for review. “I recall … Continue reading Do you calculate if you should accept an invite to peer review? Please stop, say journal editors