Category Archives: studies about retractions
‘The notices are utterly unhelpful’: A look at how journals have handled allegations about hundreds of papers
Retraction Watch readers may recall the names Jun Iwamoto and Yoshihiro Sato, who now sit in positions 3 and 4 of our leaderboard of retractions, Sato with more than 100. Readers may also recall the names Andrew Grey, Alison Avenell and Mark Bolland, whose sleuthing was responsible for those retractions. In a recent paper in … Continue reading ‘The notices are utterly unhelpful’: A look at how journals have handled allegations about hundreds of papers
Posted by in studies about retractions
How can universities and journals work together better on misconduct allegations?
Retractions, expressions of concern, and corrections often arise from reader critiques sent by readers, whether those readers are others in the field, sleuths, or other interested parties. In many of those cases, journals seek the input of authors’ employers, often universities. In a recent paper in Research Integrity and Peer Review, longtime scientific publishing consultant … Continue reading How can universities and journals work together better on misconduct allegations?
Posted by in studies about retractions
What happened when a group of sleuths flagged more than 30 papers with errors?
Retraction Watch readers may recall the name Jennifer Byrne, whose work as a scientific sleuth we first wrote about four years ago, and have followed ever since. In a new paper in Scientometrics, Byrne, of New South Wales Health Pathology and the University of Sydney, working along with researchers including Cyril Labbé, known for his work … Continue reading What happened when a group of sleuths flagged more than 30 papers with errors?
Posted by in studies about retractions
Journal editor breaks protocol to thank an anonymous whistleblower
As Retraction Watch readers may recall, we’ve been highlighting — and championing — the work of anonymous whistleblowers throughout the 10-year history of the blog. Our support for such anonymity, however, is not universally shared. In 2011, for example, in our column at Lab Times (unfortunately no longer online), we wrote: [W]e’re baffled as to … Continue reading Journal editor breaks protocol to thank an anonymous whistleblower
Posted by in studies about retractions
“[H]ow gullible reviewers and editors…can be”: An excerpt from Science Fictions
We’re pleased to present an excerpt from Stuart Ritchie’s new book, Science Fictions: How Fraud, Bias, Negligence, and Hype Undermine the Search for Truth. One of the best-known, and most absurd, scientific fraud cases of the twentieth century also concerned transplants – in this case, skin grafts. While working at the prestigious Sloan-Kettering Cancer Institute … Continue reading “[H]ow gullible reviewers and editors…can be”: An excerpt from Science Fictions
Posted by in studies about retractions
Journals are failing to address duplication in the literature, says a new study
How seriously are journals taking duplicated work that they publish? That was the question Mario Malički and colleagues set out to answer six years ago. And last month, they published their findings in Biochemia Medica. The upshot? Journals have a lot of work to do. Since we’re often asked why duplication is a problem, we’ll … Continue reading Journals are failing to address duplication in the literature, says a new study
Posted by in studies about retractions
Which kind of peer review is best for catching fraud?
Is peer review a good way to weed out problematic papers? And if it is, which kinds of peer review? In a new paper in Scientometrics, Willem Halffman, of Radboud University, and Serge Horbach, of Radboud University and Leiden University, used our database of retractions to try to find out. We asked them several questions about … Continue reading Which kind of peer review is best for catching fraud?
Posted by in studies about peer review, studies about retractions
Want to tell if a paper has been retracted? Good luck
Nowadays, there are many ways to access a paper — on the publisher’s website, on MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and other outlets. So when the publisher retracts a paper, do these outlets consistently mark it as such? And if they don’t, what’s the impact? Researchers Caitlin Bakker and Amy Riegelman at the University of Minnesota … Continue reading Want to tell if a paper has been retracted? Good luck
Posted by in studies about retractions
20 years of retractions in China: More of them, and more misconduct
After reviewing nearly 20 years of retractions from researchers based in China, researchers came up with some somewhat unsurprising (yet still disheartening) findings: The number of retractions has increased (from zero in 1997 to more than 150 in 2016), and approximately 75% were due to some kind of misconduct. (You can read more details in […]
The post 20 years of retractions in China: More of them, and more misconduct appeared first on Retraction Watch.
Posted by in china retractions, studies about retractions
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.
Posted by in daniele fanelli, studies about retractions