Search Results for: third party

Journal quarantines MERS paper, posts EoC for “rights to use the data”

Eurosurveillance is investigating potential problems with study on the deadly breakout of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) in South Korea. The notice was issued after the journal discovered that study data might have been used without permission. “Epidemiological investigation of MERS-CoV spread in a single hospital in South Korea, May to June 2015,” was published … Continue reading Journal quarantines MERS paper, posts EoC for “rights to use the data”

What should an ideal retraction notice look like?

Have you seen our “unhelpful retraction notices” category, a motley collection of vague, misleading, and even information-free entries? We’d like to make it obsolete, and we need our readers’ help. Here’s what we mean: Next month, Ivan will be traveling to Rio to take part in the World Conference on Research Integrity. One of his … Continue reading What should an ideal retraction notice look like?

When should a paper be retracted? A tale from the obesity literature

In our line of work, we see it all — mega-corrections that don’t quite rise to the level of retraction, letters to the editor that point out seemingly fatal flaws in papers that remain untouched, and studies retracted for what seem like minor reasons. It can make you wonder what makes a paper worthy of … Continue reading When should a paper be retracted? A tale from the obesity literature

BioMed Central retracting 43 papers for fake peer review

BioMed Central is retracting 43 papers, following their investigation into 50 papers that raised suspicions of fake peer review, possibly involving third-party companies selling the service. In November 2014 we wrote about fake peer reviews for Nature; at that point there had been about 110 retractions across several journals. The addition of 16 retractions by Elsevier for … Continue reading BioMed Central retracting 43 papers for fake peer review

Bitter herbs: Parsley paper retracted after authors omit colleague

A pair of plant experts at Uludag University, in Turkey, has lost a paper on techniques for drying parsley because they evidently left a key contributor off the manuscript. The article, “Effect of Vacuum, Microwave, and Convective Drying on Selected Parsley Quality,” was published online in June 2011 by the International Journal of Food Properties. … Continue reading Bitter herbs: Parsley paper retracted after authors omit colleague

Retractions follow revelations of misconduct by diabetes biotech

Several months after a drug company cancelled development of a potential diabetes cure because it found evidence that a biotech they had recently acquired had committed misconduct in studies of the drug, two retractions of relevant studies have appeared. The research involves DiaPep277, which, as Josh Levy explained here in September, “would cause the immune system … Continue reading Retractions follow revelations of misconduct by diabetes biotech

Are companies selling fake peer reviews to help papers get published?

Faked peer reviews — a subject about which we’ve been writing more and more recently — are concerning enough to a number of publishers that they’ve approached the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) to work together on a solution. In the past, we have reported on a number of cases in which authors were able … Continue reading Are companies selling fake peer reviews to help papers get published?

Publisher discovers 50 manuscripts involving fake peer reviewers

BioMed Central has uncovered about fifty manuscripts in their editorial system that involved fake peer reviewers, Retraction Watch has learned. Most of the cases were not published because they were discovered by a manuscript editor on a final pre-publication check. The five or so that have been published will go through some sort of re-review, … Continue reading Publisher discovers 50 manuscripts involving fake peer reviewers

“Significant” copying forces retraction of sternotomy paper

Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery has yanked a 2005 sternotomy paper by a group of researchers who plagiarized from an earlier article on the subject. The article, “The complications of repeat median sternotomy in paediatrics: six-months follow-up of consecutive cases,” came from a team at Glenfield Hospital in Leicester, England, and has been cited eight … Continue reading “Significant” copying forces retraction of sternotomy paper

A new partner for Retraction Watch: PRE (Peer Review Evaluation)

We’re very pleased to announce that we’ve partnered with PRE (Peer Review Evaluation) to improve access to information about retraction policies. In the coming months, we’ll be publishing guidelines for what we think should be included in retraction notices, and on how those notices should be publicized. As a release describing the new partnership notes: