In late 2013, we filed suit along with Automattic, the parent company of our blogging platform WordPress, against someone allegedly at a news service in India who falsely claimed that we had violated its copyright. Last week, we were pleased to learn Automattic won a similar case against a group that tried to censor another … Continue reading WordPress parent company wins suit fighting false DMCA copyright claims
This week at Retraction Watch featured polar opposites: Two new entries in our “doing the right thing” category, and one in our plagiarism euphemism parade. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
How much money does scientific fraud waste? That’s an important question, with an answer that may help determine how much attention some people pay to research misconduct. But it’s one that hasn’t been rigorously addressed. Seeking some clarity, Andrew Stern, Arturo Casadevall, Grant Steen, and Ferric Fang looked at cases in which the Office of … Continue reading “Research misconduct accounts for a small percentage of total funding”: Study
A blog post at another site that picked up on our coverage of Benjamin Jacob Hayempour, the researcher who has two retractions and has threatened to sue us, has been removed following a Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown notice. As Andrew Oh-Willkie, the blogger, writes in an account of the incident:
Retraction Watch readers may recall that earlier this year, ten of our posts disappeared for two weeks after someone at an alleged news service in India falsely claimed that we had violated their copyright. The situation was the opposite of those claims; in fact our copyright had been violated, and the posts, all about Anil … Continue reading Retraction Watch, WordPress parent company file suit to fight false copyright claims, censorship
The authors of a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine are retracting it, after being unable to find data supporting a table that required corrections. Here’s the notice:
Just two days ago, we covered the ninth retraction for Jesús Lemus, “the veterinary researcher whose work colleagues have had trouble verifying, including being unable to confirm the identity of one of his co-authors.” And already another of his retractions has appeared in one of our daily alerts. This one appears in PLOS ONE, for … Continue reading Tenth retraction appears for Jesús Lemus, this one in PLOS ONE
Readers of this blog — and anyone who has been following the Anil Potti saga — know that MD Anderson Cancer Center was the source of initial concerns about the reproducibility of the studies Potti, and his supervisor, Joseph Nevins, were publishing in high profile journals. So the Houston institution has a rep for dealing … Continue reading Half of researchers have reported trouble reproducing published findings: MD Anderson survey
Colin Purrington has developed something of a niche in the research world. While teaching evolutionary biology at Swarthmore College, Purrington began developing a how-to manual for putting together poster presentations for meetings — a pursuit that has earned him a little money and some attention. The result is a website, Designing conference posters, that, by … Continue reading Plagiarism spat over scientific poster prep advice escalates to legal threats
Andrew Gelman, a statistician at Columbia University and a friend of the blog, has corrected a 2008 paper in the blunt way you’d expect him to. Here’s the notice in the Annals of Applied Statistics: In the paper, “Should the Democrats move to the left on economic policy?” AOAS 2 (2), 536-549 (2008), by Andrew … Continue reading “[A]ll of Section 3 is wrong until proven otherwise”: Correction of paper on Democrats’ economic policy