Search Results for: plagiarism

Carlo Croce, Ohio State researcher facing misconduct allegations, suing New York Times for defamation

Carlo Croce, a cancer researcher at The Ohio State University who has faced numerous allegations of research misconduct, has filed a lawsuit against the New York Times, claiming the newspaper defamed him in a March 8 story. Croce filed the civil suit May 10, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, … Continue reading Carlo Croce, Ohio State researcher facing misconduct allegations, suing New York Times for defamation

Did the author of a now-retracted article bribe a critic to silence him?

Authors react in a variety of ways to criticism of their work. Some stonewall, some grit their teeth but make corrections, and others thank their critics. But what about bribery?

Weekend reads: Publishing too much?; CRISPR doubts; Pharma in predatory journals

The week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of a paper from Yale on ketamine and depression, a retraction for Carlo Croce, and a discussion of when a citation may not be enough. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

When is a citation not enough?

Last year, Boris Ratnikov was reading a paper and saw a familiar image. He quickly realized: The image was from a 2012 paper he’d written, but wasn’t cited. The 2016 Cell Metabolism paper he was reading had copied a figure from his 2012 PLOS ONE paper without referencing it.  In September 2016, Ratnikov, who is … Continue reading When is a citation not enough?

What should a journal do when a scientist who committed misconduct submits a new paper?

In December of last year, Chris Surridge found himself in a situation not uncommon to journal editors: A researcher who had been found to have committed misconduct had submitted a manuscript to the journal Surridge edits, Nature Plants. Retraction Watch readers may recall the name of the corresponding author, Patrice Dunoyer, who has had five papers … Continue reading What should a journal do when a scientist who committed misconduct submits a new paper?

Lost citation snuffs out Aussie fire paper

A journal has retracted a 2016 paper on wildfires in Australia because the authors neglected to cite earlier work — an unintentional lapse, they said. The article, “Projected changes in Australian fire regimes during the 21st century and consequences for Ecosystems,” appeared in the International Journal of Wildland Fire. The authors are Sandy Harrison and Douglas … Continue reading Lost citation snuffs out Aussie fire paper

Weekend reads: Predatory fraud; risky spreadsheets; how to report issues in a paper

The week at Retraction Watch featured a look at publishing bounties around the world, and the story of how the “right to be forgotten” law had led to a retraction. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Weekend reads: A science BS detector; scholarly publishing’s 1%; a tenured professor is fired

The week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of a 35-year-old paper written by a cat, and the retraction of a study about a controversial gene editing technique. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

After 35 years, philosophy journal corrects article…by a cat

In 1982, Bruce Le Catt wrote a response to a paper in the Australasian Journal of Philosophy critiquing an earlier article about prosthetic vision. But Le Catt was no ordinary author. No, he was a cat, the beloved pet of David Lewis, a world-class philosopher who just happened to be the author of the article … Continue reading After 35 years, philosophy journal corrects article…by a cat

Researcher who stole manuscript during peer review earns second retraction

The researcher whose brazen theft of a manuscript he had reviewed prompted a “Dear plagiarist” letter from the aggrieved author once the deceit was discovered has lost a second paper for plagiarism. International Scholarly Research Notices, a Hindawi publication, has retracted a 2012 study by Carmine Finelli and colleagues, citing widespread misuse of text from … Continue reading Researcher who stole manuscript during peer review earns second retraction