Search Results for: fraud

Fake email for corresponding author forces neuro journal to retract paper

A chair of a neurobiology department in China has requested the retraction of a paper on which he was unwittingly listed as the lead and corresponding author. How could a corresponding author — you know, the person with whom the journal corresponds about the paper — be added without their consent? It seems that a fraudulent email account was involved in … Continue reading Fake email for corresponding author forces neuro journal to retract paper

Weekend reads: Idiotic reviews; wrong metrics in China; questions about preprints

The week at Retraction Watch featured the corrections of papers claiming that conservative beliefs were linked to psychotic traits, and a new member of our leaderboard, from philosophy. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Author denies accusations of blatant duplication

Twitter is abuzz today over allegations that a recent paper in Scientific Reports contains a blatant example of duplication. According to the allegations, a group of researchers in Malaysia have used the same four images to represent some 30 cells at different stages of cell death. One researcher has even suggested the allegedly doctored images appear in three … Continue reading Author denies accusations of blatant duplication

Should researchers guilty of misconduct go to “rehab”?

A report on the first few years of “researcher rehab” suggests that three days of intensive training have a lasting impact on participants. Specifically, among participants — all of whom had been found guilty of at least one type of misconduct — the authors report that: A year later, follow-up surveys indicate that the vast majority … Continue reading Should researchers guilty of misconduct go to “rehab”?

Weekend reads: How to prove (and find) false claims; confessions of a wasteful scientist

This week at Retraction Watch featured what may be a record for plagiarism, a paper retracted because the device researchers claimed to use hadn’t arrive in the institution yet, and a technical glitch, which meant you may have missed some of our posts. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

JAMA takes all calls for retraction seriously — even from PETA

A leading medical journal is taking a second look at a recent high-profile paper about elephants’ lower risk of cancer, after receiving a call for retraction from a somewhat unusual corner: the animal rights group PETA. This isn’t the first time the activist group has called for a retraction — last year, it nudged a … Continue reading JAMA takes all calls for retraction seriously — even from PETA

Some posts you may have missed: Impressive amounts of plagiarism; PhD revocation; a poll, and more

Dear Retraction Watch readers: Those of you signed up for our emails for every post may have wondered why we haven’t sent you any emails since Saturday. Well, it wasn’t because we didn’t want to. We had a technical glitch, which we’ve now fixed. Apologies for that, and here are links to the posts that … Continue reading Some posts you may have missed: Impressive amounts of plagiarism; PhD revocation; a poll, and more

Finnish universities must now use courts to revoke degrees

A court in Finland has ruled that universities must go through the court system if they want to revoke a degree. In a precedent-setting decision, a body dubbed “the court of last resort in administrative cases” in Finland ruled that universities must apply to them to revoke someone’s degree. The ruling, which occurred this month, took place after a … Continue reading Finnish universities must now use courts to revoke degrees

Weekend reads: Improper influence by NFL; dissertations for sale; how common is failure to reproduce?

The week at Retraction Watch featured controversy over an economics paper, and a report of a researcher who faked more than 70 experiments. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Editors say they missed “fairly obvious clues” of third party tampering, publish fake peer reviews

The editors of a journal that recently retracted a paper after the peer-review process was “compromised” have published the fake reviews, along with additional details about the case. In the editorial titled “Organised crime against the academic peer review system,” Adam Cohen and other editors at the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology say they missed “several fairly obvious … Continue reading Editors say they missed “fairly obvious clues” of third party tampering, publish fake peer reviews