Search Results for: sting

Why do researchers commit misconduct? A new preprint offers some clues

“Why Do Scientists Fabricate And Falsify Data?” That’s the start of the title of a new preprint posted on bioRxiv this week by researchers whose names Retraction Watch readers will likely find familiar. Daniele Fanelli, Rodrigo Costas, Ferric Fang (a member of the board of directors of our parent non-profit organization), Arturo Casadevall, and Elisabeth … Continue reading Why do researchers commit misconduct? A new preprint offers some clues

U.S. panel sounds alarm on “detrimental” research practices, calls for new body to help tackle misconduct

A new report from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences panel urges the creation of a new, independent group to help tackle research misconduct and other practices that hurt the enterprise. The report also renames those problematic practices — such as “misleading statistical analysis that falls short of falsification,” awarding authorship to researchers who don’t deserve … Continue reading U.S. panel sounds alarm on “detrimental” research practices, calls for new body to help tackle misconduct

Chemistry papers challenged a paradigm — until the authors spotted a pivotal error

Several years ago, a group of four chemists believed they had stumbled upon evidence that contradicted a fairly well-established model in fluid dynamics. Between 2013 and 2015, the researchers published a series of four papers detailing their results — two in ACS Macro Letters and two in Macromolecules. Timothy P. Lodge, the journals’ editor and a distinguished professor … Continue reading Chemistry papers challenged a paradigm — until the authors spotted a pivotal error

Busted: Researcher used fake contact info for co-authors

In February, Lusine Abrahamyan, an assistant professor at the University of Toronto, was contacted by ResearchGate. Her name was listed on a 2016 paper in a heart journal, the site told her — was Abrahamyan indeed a co-author? Um, no, she was not. In fact, before that moment, she didn’t know such a paper existed. It turns out, Abrahamyan had supervised … Continue reading Busted: Researcher used fake contact info for co-authors

Idea theft: Two food chemistry papers retracted for using someone’s ideas

A researcher has retracted two papers after her former supervisor complained she had used his ideas and methodology. In addition, some of the work was apparently covered by a copyright agreement. Both papers were co-authored by the same three people. The idea theft came to light after one of the co-authors received a complaint from … Continue reading Idea theft: Two food chemistry papers retracted for using someone’s ideas

Weekend reads: When reproducibility is weaponized; Internet-based paraphrasing tools; go parasites!

The week at Retraction Watch featured a predatory journal sting involving a fake disorder from Seinfeld, and a study with disturbing findings about how retracted papers are cited. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Cornell finds mistakes — not misconduct — in papers by high-profile nutrition researcher

An internal review by Cornell University has concluded that a high-profile researcher whose work has been under fire made numerous mistakes in his work, but did not commit misconduct. In response, the researcher — Brian Wansink — announced that he has submitted four errata to the journals that published the work in question. Since the … Continue reading Cornell finds mistakes — not misconduct — in papers by high-profile nutrition researcher

For problematic papers, don’t retract or correct, say publishing experts: Amend

A group of publishing experts have proposed a somewhat radical idea: Instead of retracting papers, or issuing corrections that address problems, authors should amend published articles. Here’s how it would work – any post-publication changes would be added as amendments labeled “insubstantial,” “substantial,” or “complete” (equivalent to a retraction). Is this a better way? We … Continue reading For problematic papers, don’t retract or correct, say publishing experts: Amend

“Failure is an essential part of science:” A Q&A with the author of a new book on reproducibility

Reproducibility is everywhere recently, from the pages of scientific journals to the halls of the National Academy of Sciences, and today it lands in bookstores across the U.S. Longtime NPR correspondent Richard Harris has written Rigor Mortis (Basic Books), which is published today. (Full disclosure: I blurbed the book, writing that “Harris deftly weaves gripping tales … Continue reading “Failure is an essential part of science:” A Q&A with the author of a new book on reproducibility

Weekend reads: What’s the real rate of misconduct?; research parasites win awards; preprints’ watershed moment

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: