Search Results for: plagiarism

No new math: Journal pulls math paper with “already known” results

A mathematics journal has withdrawn a paper after discovering that the results were not new. The paper, published online in March in Communications in Algebra, explored the properties of group rings, a discipline of algebra. According to editor-in-chief of the journal, Jason Bell, author Francis E. A. Johnson, a professor of mathematics at the University … Continue reading No new math: Journal pulls math paper with “already known” results

Springer purge of fake reviews takes down 10+ more neuroscience papers

Back in April, Springer retracted a record number 107 papers from Tumor Biology after uncovering evidence they were subject to fake peer reviews. But it appears that the Tumor Biology sweep was only part of the story. During the Tumor Biology investigation, Springer found evidence that the “peer review process was compromised” in a dozen papers … Continue reading Springer purge of fake reviews takes down 10+ more neuroscience papers

Weekend reads: A demand for a CRISPR paper retraction; a weak data-sharing policy; can we trust journals?

The week at Retraction Watch featured a study suggesting that 2% of studies in eight medical journals contained suspect data, and the announcement of a retraction on a professor’s blog. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Journal won’t look at allegations about papers more than six years old, nor comment on those from “public websites”

After a paper is published, how long should a journal consider allegations of misconduct? For one journal, that answer is: Six years. We see plenty of journals that retract papers at least 10 years old over concerns regarding misconduct, but in a recent editorial, Molecular and Cellular Biology announced it would pursue allegations made within … Continue reading Journal won’t look at allegations about papers more than six years old, nor comment on those from “public websites”

A retraction gets retracted — but the first author’s contract is still terminated

After issuing a retraction notice May 30 for a biomedical engineering paper, the journal has since pulled the notice, citing “a potential problem.” After doing some digging, we’ve learned more about the “potential problem.” Apparently, the retraction was requested by Nanyang Technological University (NTU) in Singapore. NTU has been investigating the first author for months, after it received … Continue reading A retraction gets retracted — but the first author’s contract is still terminated

Two in 100 clinical trials in eight major journals likely contain inaccurate data: Study

A sweeping analysis of more than 5,000 papers in eight leading medical journals has found compelling evidence of suspect data in roughly 2% of randomized controlled clinical trials in those journals. Although the analysis, by John Carlisle, an anesthetist in the United Kingdom, could not determine whether the concerning data were tainted by misconduct or … Continue reading Two in 100 clinical trials in eight major journals likely contain inaccurate data: Study

Weekend reads: ‘Pile of dung’ republished; Diverging views on publishing negative results; Economists share regrets

The week at Retraction Watch featured an unusual warning from the New England Journal of Medicine, and the withdrawal of a paper over a fear of legal threats. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

It’s not just whistleblowers who deserve protection during misconduct investigations, say researchers

In 2010, the former PhD supervisor of Sven Hendrix, a neuroanatomist at Hasselt University in Belgium, was accused of misconduct. Although the allegations were eventually dropped, the experience was emotionally and professionally draining – and Hendrix wanted the research community to know about it. In 2015, he shared his story at a conference in Rotterdam; … Continue reading It’s not just whistleblowers who deserve protection during misconduct investigations, say researchers

Weekend reads: The editor who’s a dog; the fake author; a monument to peer review

The week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of a much-discussed paper on using blockchain to prevent scientific misconduct, and a researcher who lost nine studies at once from a single journal. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Publisher blames bad choice of reviewer for publication of hoax paper on penis as “social construct” 

Less than a week after publishing a much-discussed hoax paper, a scholarly publisher has acknowledged that it had chosen reviewers for the paper whose “expertise did not fully align with this subject matter.” The subject matter: that the penis should not be considered an anatomical organ, but more as a concept – “a gender-performative, highly fluid social … Continue reading Publisher blames bad choice of reviewer for publication of hoax paper on penis as “social construct”