WASHINGTON, D.C — Last week, former brain scientist Christian Kreipke stared down the third set of research misconduct allegations against him since 2011. Or, possibly, according to him, it was the third iteration of the same research misconduct allegations he’s faced for years, a piling on by the most powerful of the three institutions out … Continue reading Ex-Wayne State scientist, ORI square off in court
A volunteer researcher at Florida Atlantic University fabricated the results of mouse experiments over a 14-day period in June, 2016, according to a new finding issued by the U.S Office of Research Integrity (ORI). According to the ORI, Alec Mirchandani made up the results of behavioral experiments to make it seem as if he had done the … Continue reading Volunteer researcher faked weeks’ worth of data
A patient’s “unusual” brain cyst excited several researchers in China so much they published a paper about it in a major journal. Soon a reader identified a glaring mistake: the authors had described the cause of the cyst incorrectly. A month after the paper appeared online in November 2016, the reader — a neurologist … Continue reading Lost in translation: Authors blame a language error for wrong diagnosis
The week at Retraction Watch featured a story of unintended consequences and a broken relationship, and a retraction for a paper that had just about everything wrong with it. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Suing the government is difficult. And because public universities often function as an arm of state governments, that makes them hard to sue, too, a fact reiterated in a whistleblower case decided earlier this year. In January, Judge David Hale of the Western District of Kentucky dismissed a lawsuit filed by former employees of the … Continue reading Failed whistleblower suit is a reminder that public universities are hard to sue
The paper had everything: Fake peer review, forged authors, even a fake funder. In other words, it had nothing. A 2015 paper is the latest retraction stemming from an investigation into fake peer review by Springer, which has now netted more than a hundred papers. According to a spokesperson at Springer:
It started as a simple email exchange over authorship. But it angered one researcher so much that it ended a 20-year collaboration. In January 2017, a chemist based in Mexico had finished writing a paper describing the structure of a molecule. Sylvain Bernès, at the Instituto de Física Luis Rivera Terrazas, asked his co-author—the head … Continue reading Unintended consequences: How authorship guidelines destroyed a relationship
Two molecular biologists have withdrawn two 2015 papers published in the same journal, citing image duplication and manipulation, among other issues. One notice — published in June — explains that, after further investigation, the Journal of Biological Chemistry (JBC) found certain experiments “were not performed appropriately.” The other notice cites “missing data” and notes that … Continue reading “Some experiments were not performed appropriately:” Florida researchers lose two papers
The week at Retraction Watch featured the tale of a scientist whose explanations for misconduct kept changing, and revelations in a big legal case involving Duke University. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Two authors who had a paper retracted for fake peer review in 2015 have lost another for the same reason. Elsevier recently retracted the second paper by the duo, a 2015 paper in a cancer journal, after finding evidence of fake peer review. The paper was submitted in October 2014 and accepted just a week … Continue reading Fake peer review strikes again for pair of authors