Cornell finds that food marketing researcher Brian Wansink committed misconduct, as he announces retirement

A day after the JAMA family of journals retracted six of his studies, Cornell food marketing researcher Brian Wansink tells Retraction Watch that he will be retiring next year. And Cornell said today that it found that Wansink “committed academic misconduct in his research and scholarship, including misreporting of research data, problematic statistical techniques, failure … Continue reading Cornell finds that food marketing researcher Brian Wansink committed misconduct, as he announces retirement

Weekend reads: Top researchers resign over publishing issues; organized crime meets publishing; infamous fraudster rides in on a horse

Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, we could really use your help. Would you consider a tax-deductible donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance. The week at Retraction Watch featured a look at authors who publish once every five days, … Continue reading Weekend reads: Top researchers resign over publishing issues; organized crime meets publishing; infamous fraudster rides in on a horse

Irony? The Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention retracts a paper

Irony machine, start your engine: A pair of engineers have lost a 2017 paper in the Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention over a failure to determine who owned the data. The article, “Solder selection for reflowing large ceramic substrates during PCB assembly,” was written by Prashant Reddy Gangidi and Noy Souriyasak, both listed as … Continue reading Irony? The Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention retracts a paper

When it comes to authorship, how prolific is too prolific?

One of the suggestions we get regularly here at Retraction Watch is something along the lines of “This researcher publishes too much. You should look into that.” But how much is too much? The phenomenon was the subject of a 2015 paper. It’s also the subject of a new article in Nature by John Ioannidis, … Continue reading When it comes to authorship, how prolific is too prolific?

Weekend reads: An article on a controversial topic just disappears; mass resignations from a nutrition journal; the likely mistaken history of the vibrator

Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, we could really use your help. Would you consider a tax-deductible donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance. This week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of happiness, an apology from a journal, and … Continue reading Weekend reads: An article on a controversial topic just disappears; mass resignations from a nutrition journal; the likely mistaken history of the vibrator

Publisher retracts two papers, will correct five more for lab with high “level of disorganization”

A lab at the University of Malaya has lost two papers and will have to correct five more — just from one publisher — over poor lab practices. One of the retracted papers paper tested the effects of a plant on liver damage; its notice says the paper contains overlap with another paper from the … Continue reading Publisher retracts two papers, will correct five more for lab with high “level of disorganization”

One retraction notice says plagiarism. The other says it was an error in an algorithm. Which was it?

For the second time in a week, we’ve come across a retraction notice that gave the wrong reason for the retraction. Last week, it was an Elsevier journal that called a plagiarized paper a duplicate of work by the same authors who’d written the original. Today, here’s the story of a chapter in a book … Continue reading One retraction notice says plagiarism. The other says it was an error in an algorithm. Which was it?

Weekend reads: China’s black market in publishing; no fraud in NgAgo gene editing work, says university; predatory journal crackdown

Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, we could really use your help. Would you consider a tax-deductible donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance. The week at Retraction Watch featured a high-profile paper about cataract surgery and the risk of … Continue reading Weekend reads: China’s black market in publishing; no fraud in NgAgo gene editing work, says university; predatory journal crackdown

A high-profile paper linked cataract surgery to a lower risk of death. It was wrong.

Late last year, news stories trumpeted the findings: Older women who received surgery to fix their cataracts were less likely to die over the course of a study period. Now, the same group of authors is saying the exact opposite may be true. Last week, the researchers retracted their 2017 paper in JAMA Ophthalmology and … Continue reading A high-profile paper linked cataract surgery to a lower risk of death. It was wrong.

Authors retract paper on effects of skipping the flu vaccine

A 2017 paper, when originally published, had a fairly clear message: People who got the flu vaccine every year were no less protected than someone who had skipped last year’s dose. But now that it’s been retracted, the picture is somewhat less clear. The retraction notice in BMC Medicine doesn’t provide much information — it … Continue reading Authors retract paper on effects of skipping the flu vaccine