When multiple doctors treat a patient, who gets to publish the case report?

Three researchers are fighting over who should get to publish a case report on a pair of unique patients. Yoo-Mi Kim—who was not an author on the paper—claimed that he had diagnosed the patients described in the report, and should have been the one to write it up. The authors—Jun Woo Park and Soo Jung … Continue reading When multiple doctors treat a patient, who gets to publish the case report?

Infighting at journal prompts retraction of editorial “full of misinformation”

An editor thought she did a great job running an anesthesiology journal. But her colleagues— including the new editor who took over for her—heartily disagree. During her tenure at the journal, the outgoing editor penned an editorial taking credit for the journal’s rise to success. But, according to a new commentary published in the journal, … Continue reading Infighting at journal prompts retraction of editorial “full of misinformation”

Chemists duke it out over who was first to discover a 30-year-old technique

Decades ago, unbeknownst to each other, two chemists were independently working on a screening approach to identify new potential drugs. Both published papers about the technique around the same time. So now, when scientists write papers that cite the technique, who should get credit for discovering it? Decades later, that question still hasn’t been answered … Continue reading Chemists duke it out over who was first to discover a 30-year-old technique

Flawed climate science paper “exposed potential weaknesses” in the peer review process

Before we present this new post, a question: Do you enjoy reading Retraction Watch? If so, we could really use your help. Would you consider a tax-deductible donation to support our work? Thanks in advance. How did a deeply flawed paper, which contradicts mainstream science on climate change, pass peer review? That is what three editorial … Continue reading Flawed climate science paper “exposed potential weaknesses” in the peer review process

Research problems at Australian university hit the news

A university in Australia that’s made headlines before over allegations of research misconduct has found itself in the news once again. Last week, the University of Queensland (UQ) announced some of its authors were retracting a paper after discovering data were missing. Just days later, the university made headlines over an investigation into three papers … Continue reading Research problems at Australian university hit the news

Whoops: Authors didn’t mean to include new data in article about transgender identity

Here’s something we don’t see that often — authors retracting one of their articles because it included new data. But that is the case with a 2017 review exploring the potential genetic and hormonal underpinnings of gender identity.  The authors Rosa Fernández García and Eduardo Pásaro Mendez told Retraction Watch that they asked bioethics journal … Continue reading Whoops: Authors didn’t mean to include new data in article about transgender identity

A retraction gets retracted

Last year, an emergency medicine journal retracted a letter to the editor because it didn’t include the author’s potential conflict of interest. Now, it’s had a change of heart. Earlier this month, the Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine withdrew the retraction after determining the author, Guy Weinberg, had, in fact, provided information about his potential conflict  … Continue reading A retraction gets retracted

Authors retract heart disease paper for “nonscientific reason”

Researchers have retracted a 2018 paper about the genetic underpinnings of heart disease from the FASEB Journal — and it’s not entirely clear why. The paywalled retraction notice simply cites a “nonscientific reason.” Cody Mooneyhan, the director of publications at the journal, declined to provide further details, and the authors have provided different accounts of … Continue reading Authors retract heart disease paper for “nonscientific reason”

An author was accused of faking peer reviews. Turns out he also falsified two images.

In 2015, the journal Cureus published two neurosurgery papers from the same corresponding author, one month apart. Soon after, the journal uncovered “potential irregularities” with two reviews during a routine editorial audit, editor John R. Adler Jr. told Retraction Watch: Two faked reviewer accounts (co-opting the names of well known neurosurgeons) seemed to have been … Continue reading An author was accused of faking peer reviews. Turns out he also falsified two images.

Journal retracts and replaces paper because author stole credit for group’s work

An optics journal has retracted and replaced a 2016 paper after discovering that the author took sole credit for a team project. According to the retraction notice, a University of Leeds review determined that “the research on which the paper was based the work of a team,” not just that of Raied S. Al-Lashi, who … Continue reading Journal retracts and replaces paper because author stole credit for group’s work