The week at Retraction Watch featured a new record for most retractions by a single journal, and an impassioned plea from a biostatistician for journals to clean up their act. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Some types of misconduct are obvious – most researchers would agree cooking data and plagiarizing someone’s work are clear no-nos. But what about overhyping your findings? Using funding allocated to an unrelated project, if it keeps a promising young student afloat? On these so-called “gray” areas of research behavior, people aren’t so clear what to … Continue reading “Ethical ambiguity:” When scientific misconduct isn’t black and white
The troubles continue for a bone researcher, who’s lost multiple papers in recent months due to problems ranging from data issues to including authors without their consent. Now, journals have retracted two more papers by Yoshihiro Sato. And in a sign of the downstream effects that fraud can have, another journal has retracted two meta-analyses by other … Continue reading Fraud by bone researcher takes down two meta-analyses, a clinical trial, and review
A leading physicist in India has lost four more papers for duplication, after colleagues lodged a complaint against him. According to the most recent retraction notices, issued by Applied Surface Science, the four papers duplicated several figures and portions of text from the authors’ previous works. Although the notices do not single out a responsible party, last year the … Continue reading Prominent physicist loses four more papers for duplication
A researcher is strongly objecting to a publisher’s decision to retract three of her papers from two computing journals without informing her first. The reason: Self-plagiarism, which the author said stemmed from her PhD student using similar descriptions for the background sections of the papers. She argued that if the reviewers had flagged the duplication, she … Continue reading Author surprised when publisher pulls three of her papers
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
Earlier this month, a high-profile food researcher who’s recently come under fire announced a journal was retracting one of his papers for duplication. Today, a retraction appeared — for a 2002 study which contained “major overlap,” according to the journal. The Journal of Sensory Studies has retracted a paper by Cornell’s Brian Wansink about how labeling of foods can affect … Continue reading First retraction appears for embattled food researcher Brian Wansink
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:
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
U.S. Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch appears to have borrowed material from multiple authors in his 2006 book, according to a new analysis by Politico. This week, U.S. lawmakers are going head-to-head over the nomination of Gorsuch to the highest court in the land. Although the book is only one snippet of Gorsuch’s vast portfolio … Continue reading Supreme Court nominee Gorsuch lifted from earlier works in his scholarly papers: Report