Here at Retraction Watch, we are reminded every day that everybody (including us) makes mistakes — what matters is, how you handle yourself when it happens. That’s why we created a “doing the right thing” category, to flag incidents where scientists have owned up to their errors and taken steps to correct them. We’re not suggesting … Continue reading The consequences of retraction: Do scientists forgive and forget?
The week at Retraction Watch featured the story behind a Nature retraction, and the retraction of a paper by a pioneer in the field of exosome research. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
A new study suggests that much of what we think about misconduct — including the idea that it is linked to the unrelenting pressure on scientists to publish high-profile papers — is incorrect. In a new paper out today in PLOS ONE [see update at end of post], Daniele Fanelli, Rodrigo Costas, and Vincent Larivière performed a retrospective analysis of … Continue reading Pressure to publish not to blame for misconduct, says new study
The Journal of Immunology is retracting a 2006 article about the role of exosomes in pregnancy at the behest of the University of Louisville in Kentucky, following a misconduct investigation that “determined multiple figures” in the paper were falsified. First author Douglas Taylor is a pioneer in exosome biology, having discovered the release of exosomes from tumor … Continue reading Exosome pioneer’s paper retracted after investigation finds “multiple” faked figures
A case filed by chronic fatigue syndrome researcher Judy Mikovits — and about to be dismissed on technical grounds — reveals that Mikovits believes her firing from a research institute was in retaliation for blowing the whistle on activities there. The suit — which we’ve made available here — was originally filed in November 2014 … Continue reading About-to-be-dismissed lawsuit reveals details of chronic fatigue syndrome-XMRV research fiasco
Two papers about the molecular underpinnings of lung damage are being retracted following an investigation at Oita University in Japan, which revealed that images from both papers had been used to depict “different experimental conditions” in a third paper (which has not been retracted). It’s not clear which of the authors were the subject of … Continue reading “A decision of misconduct was reached”: Two lung papers expire
The week at Retraction Watch featured a marriage proposal tucked into a paper’s acknowledgements section, the retraction of a controversial Science advice column, and The New York Times pushing for more focus and funding on research misconduct. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
The New York Times has an editorial today with which we wholeheartedly agree: The newspaper is calling on scientists — and even the government — to pay more attention to misconduct in research. (It also doesn’t hurt that the paper mentions us.) The proximate cause of the editorial, titled “Scientists Who Cheat,” is the retraction … Continue reading New York Times pushes for more focus, funding on research misconduct
As might have been expected, continuing developments in the Michael LaCour gay canvassing study retraction have drowned out coverage of stories that ordinarily might capture a lot of attention, such as fake case reports making their way into CDC data. A sampling: Berkeley graduate student David Broockman, one of the people whose critique brought down … Continue reading Weekend reads: Gay canvassing study saga continues; Elsevier policy sparks concern; a string of scandals
Following revelations of data issues and other problems (which crashed our server last week), Science is retracting a paper claiming that short conversations could change people’s minds on same-sex marriage. The co-author who admitted to faking the data “does not agree” to the retraction, according to Science. Here’s more from the note: