The week at Retraction Watch featured a new member of our leaderboard and a discussion of what would happen if peer reviewers didn’t look at results. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
The corresponding author of the study that detected toxic leaks from the work of prominent British artist Damien Hirst has now retracted it — but most of his co-authors disagree with the decision. The April Analytical Methods study was covered extensively by the media when it suggested staff at Damien Hirst’s 2012 exhibition at Tate Gallery in London of dead animals … Continue reading Study of air quality around Damien Hirst’s artwork retracted — against most authors’ wishes
Research integrity officials at Georgia State University say a psychology researcher did not commit misconduct in a controversial 2015 paper in JAMA Pediatrics which challenged the notion that most rapists on college campuses are repeat offenders. GSU launched the inquiry after an outside researcher questioned the validity of data supplied to him by Kevin Swartout. Brenda … Continue reading University says no misconduct in campus rape paper
The problem of publication bias — giving higher marks to a paper that reports positive results rather than judging it on its design or methods — plagues the scientific literature. So if reviewers are too focused on the results of a paper, would stripping a paper of its findings solve the problem? That was the … Continue reading We’re blinded by positive results. So what if we removed them?
A biology journal has blacklisted authors from publishing their work after finding their case report about a dementia patient with hypersexuality was plagiarized from a previously published report. The retraction notice, issued by Advances in Human Biology (AIHB) in June, recognizes the case as “scientific misconduct.” The journal launched an investigation after the plagiarism was … Continue reading Journal blacklists authors for plagiarizing case report about hypersexuality in dementia
Federal judges in Ohio have dismissed two lawsuits claiming that university researchers used false results to secure more than $250 million in federal grants. Both lawsuits, which objected to a study examining the effects of CrossFit-based training, were filed by Mitchell Potterf, the owner of a gym affiliated with CrossFit in Columbus, Ohio. Potterf took issue … Continue reading Judges toss lawsuits by CrossFit gym claiming fraud in $273 million in grants
Fazlul Sarkar has not had a good month: In the last few weeks, he has earned 13 retractions across four journals, the latest in the fallout from a string of legal cases that have pitted him against one of science publishing’s major players. Sarkar gained attention in 2014 when he sued anonymous commenters of PubPeer for defamation, and … Continue reading Meet the researcher with 13 retractions who’s trying to sue PubPeer commenters: Fazlul Sarkar
We’ve been writing about retractions for six years, and things tend to fall into easily recognizable categories — plagiarism, fabricated data, rigged peer review, etc. So it’s always interesting to come across a notice sui generis, such as one that appeared in July in OncoTargets and Therapy, a Dove title, about a new way to detect … Continue reading Beg pardon? Researchers pull cancer paper because, well, um, you see …
Are some cases of research fraud fixable with a correction notice? A chemistry journal thought so in 2014, when it issued a correction notice for a 2012 paper after the first author admitted to manipulating an image. After an investigation, the publisher agreed the manipulation was a “clear breach” of its ethical guidelines, but decided not to … Continue reading Why did a chemistry journal fix fraud with a correction instead of a retraction?
Ever read a review where the editor or reviewer seems to be specifically looking for reasons to reject a paper? Neil Herndon, the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Marketing Channels, from the South China University of Technology in Guangzhou, has. In a recent editorial, Herndon calls this type of review “gotcha” peer reviewing, and presents an alternative. … Continue reading Recognize “gotcha” peer reviews? This editor can