A journal posted an abstract online suggesting a link between vaccines and autism. After a firestorm of criticism, it removed the abstract, saying it was going to be re-reviewed. Now, the journal has decided to formally reject it. As we reported last month, Frontiers in Public Health removed the abstract after it sparked criticism on … Continue reading Journal reverses acceptance of study linking vaccines to autism
Can playing first-person shooter video games train players to become better marksmen? A 2012 paper — titled “Boom, Headshot!” — presented evidence to suggest that was, in fact, true. But after enduring heavy fire from critics (one of whom has long argued video games have little lasting impact on users), the authors are planning to … Continue reading Dispute over shooter video games may kill recent paper
When an ecologist realized he’d made a fatal error in a 2009 paper, he did the right thing: He immediately contacted the journal (Evolutionary Ecology Research) to ask for a retraction. But he didn’t stop there: He wrote a detailed blog post outlining how he learned — in October 2016, after a colleague couldn’t recreate … Continue reading “A sinking feeling in my gut:” Diary of a retraction
A physics journal has retracted a 2016 study after learning that the author published it without the knowledge or permission of the funder, which had a confidentiality agreement in place for the work. According to the retraction notice in Applied Physics Letters, the paper also lifted content from other researchers without due credit. Given the “legal … Continue reading Physics journal removes study for breach of confidentiality
When it comes to detecting image manipulation, the more tools you have at your disposal, the better. In a recent issue of Science and Engineering Ethics, Lars Koppers at TU Dortmund University in Germany and his colleagues present a new way to scan images. Specifically, they created an open-source software that compares pixels within or … Continue reading Sleuthing out scientific fraud, pixel by pixel
This week at Retraction Watch featured some big numbers: How a request to correct a single paper turned into 19 retractions, and 18 tips for giving horrible presentations. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
In August, Science told us it was considering adding an Expression of Concern to a high-profile paper about how human pollution is harming fish — and yesterday, the journal did it. The move comes after a group of researchers alleged the paper contains missing data, and the authors followed a problematic methodology. In September, however, the … Continue reading Stolen data prompts Science to flag debated study of fish and plastics
The BMJ has released a detailed correction to a much-debated article critiquing the expert report underlying the U.S. dietary guidelines. After the article was published in 2015, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) organized a letter signed by more than 100 researchers, urging the publication to retract the article. Today, the journal said it found “no … Continue reading BMJ won’t retract controversial dietary guidelines article; issues lengthy correction
Too many of us have sat through too many bad presentations. And no one wants to give one, either. Someone who’s seen his fair share of bad talks is David Sholl, of the Georgia Institute of Technology. In this helpful video, “The Secrets of Memorably Bad Presentations,” he presents some tongue-in-cheek advice on how to … Continue reading 18 tips for giving a horrible presentation
This summer, Ottawa Citizen reporter Tom Spears was sitting by a lake on vacation when he opened a spam email from a publisher. Amused to see the sender was a journal focused on bioethics, he got an idea. I thought, what if I just throw something outrageous at them? The situation should sound familiar to readers who … Continue reading Surprise! Paper retracted after author tells journal it’s a “pile of dung”