The retraction process needs work. Is there a better way?

Retractions take too long, carry too much of a stigma, and often provide too little information about what went wrong. Many people agree there’s a problem, but often can’t concur on how to address it. In one attempt, a group of experts — including our co-founder Ivan Oransky — convened at Stanford University in December … Continue reading The retraction process needs work. Is there a better way?

Why do researchers commit misconduct? A new preprint offers some clues

“Why Do Scientists Fabricate And Falsify Data?” That’s the start of the title of a new preprint posted on bioRxiv this week by researchers whose names Retraction Watch readers will likely find familiar. Daniele Fanelli, Rodrigo Costas, Ferric Fang (a member of the board of directors of our parent non-profit organization), Arturo Casadevall, and Elisabeth […]

The post Why do researchers commit misconduct? A new preprint offers some clues appeared first on Retraction Watch.

What does “reproducibility” mean? New paper seeks to standardize the lexicon

What is the difference between “reproducible” and “replicable”? And how does each relate to results that are “generalizable” and “robust”? Researchers are using these terms interchangeably, creating confusion over what exactly is needed to confirm a scientific result, argues a new paper published today in Science Translational Medicine. Here’s how the US National Science Foundation (NSF) […]

The post What does “reproducibility” mean? New paper seeks to standardize the lexicon appeared first on Retraction Watch.

Researchers’ productivity hasn’t increased in a century, study suggests

Are individual scientists now more productive early in their careers than 100 years ago? No, according to a large analysis of publication records released by PLOS ONE today. Despite concerns of rising “salami slicing” in research papers in line with the “publish or perish” philosophy of academic publishing, the study found that individual early career researchers’ productivity has […]

The post Researchers’ productivity hasn’t increased in a century, study suggests appeared first on Retraction Watch.

Pressure to publish not to blame for misconduct, says new study

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 […]

The post Pressure to publish not to blame for misconduct, says new study appeared first on Retraction Watch.

Danish high court clears Pedersen in misconduct case

Lawyers one, scientists nil. Danish judges have overruled scientists in that nation, concluding that a panel of experts erred in finding that physiologist Bente Klarlund Pedersen, of the University of Copenhagen, was guilty of misconduct. Last September, Pedersen announced that she would fight the ruling of the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD, Danish acronym […]

The post Danish high court clears Pedersen in misconduct case appeared first on Retraction Watch.

“Research misconduct accounts for a small percentage of total funding”: Study

How much money does scientific fraud waste? That’s an important question, with an answer that may help determine how much attention some people pay to research misconduct. But it’s one that hasn’t been rigorously addressed. Seeking some clarity,  Andrew Stern, Arturo Casadevall, Grant Steen, and Ferric Fang looked at cases in which the Office of […]

“Barriers to retraction may impede correction of the literature:” New study

One of the complaints we often hear about the self-correcting nature of science is that authors and editors seem very reluctant to retract papers with obvious fatal flaws. Indeed, it seems fairly clear that the number of papers retracted is smaller than the number of those that should be. To try to get a sense […]