The week at Retraction Watch featured the strange story of a reappearing retracted study, and the retraction of a study showing a link between watching violent cartoons and verbal skills. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
A Swedish university has concluded that two professors studying tissue engineering are guilty of misconduct in two published papers, including a 2012 study in The Lancet. The two researchers are Suchitra Sumitran-Holgersson and Michael Olausson, both based at the University of Gothenburg. The university investigation — launched after several of Holgersson’s papers were questioned on PubPeer — has … Continue reading Two researchers guilty of misconduct, says university investigation
This month hasn’t been all bad for Carlo Croce. Despite issuing two corrections and being the subject of a lengthy New York Times article about how he’s dodged misconduct accusations for years (prompting his institution to re-open an investigation), Croce is now the recipient of a prestigious award from the American Association for Cancer Research. In a recent … Continue reading Cancer org bestows award on scientist under investigation
Jana Rieger is a researcher in Edmonton, Alberta. And now, she’s also a novelist. Her new book, “A Course in Deception,” draws on her experiences in science, and weaves a tale of how greed and pressures to publish can lead to even worse outcomes than the sort we write about at Retraction Watch. We interviewed Rieger … Continue reading “A Course In Deception:” Scientist’s novel takes on research misconduct
Are there two types of retractions? One that results from a form of misconduct, such as plagiarism or manipulating figures, and another that results from “honest errors,” or genuine mistakes the authors have owned up to? More and more research is suggesting that the community views each type very differently, and don’t shun researchers who … Continue reading Authors who retract for honest error say they aren’t penalized as a result
The week at Retraction Watch featured the case of a peer review nightmare, and a story about harassment by a would-be scientific critic. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
From time to time, academics will devise a “sting” operation, designed to expose journals’ weaknesses. We’ve seen scientists submit a duplicated paper, a deeply flawed weight loss paper designed to generate splashy headlines (it worked), and an entirely fake paper – where even the author calls it a “pile of dung.” So it wasn’t a … Continue reading The latest sting: Will predatory journals hire “Dr. Fraud”?
The president of a top university in Taiwan has announced he will resign from his post at the end of his first term in June. President Pan-chyr Yang of National Taiwan University (NTU) has opted not to seek a second term as president given two recent investigations — one which concluded last month and one which … Continue reading President of Taiwan university to step down amidst investigation
Despite taking some serious hits, a 2006 letter in Nature isn’t going anywhere. Years ago, a university committee determined that two figures in the letter had been falsified. The journal chose to correct the paper, rather than retract it — and then, the next year, published a correction of that correction due to “an error … Continue reading Nature paper adds non-reproducibility to its list of woes
The week at Retraction Watch featured a lawsuit threat following criticism of a popular education program, and the new editor of PLOS ONE’s explanation of why submissions are down. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: