Clik here to view.
Is it time for a Retraction Index?
We often hear — with data to back the statement — that top-tier journals, ranked by impact factor, retract more papers than lower-tier journals. For example, when Murat Cokol and colleagues compared...
View ArticleClik here to view.
Will a new literature format “radically alter” how scientists write, review,...
A group of authors at a Pittsburgh company have proposed a new way to write, review, and read scientific papers that they claim will “radically alter the creation and use of credible knowledge for the...
View ArticleClik here to view.
Majority of retractions are due to misconduct: Study confirms opaque notices...
A new study out in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) today finds that two-thirds of retractions are because of some form of misconduct — a figure that’s higher than previously...
View ArticleClik here to view.
Most retraction notices don’t involve research misconduct or flawed data: new...
October, apparently, is “studies of retractions month.” First there was a groundbreaking study in PNAS, then an NBER working paper, and yesterday PLoS Medicine alerted us to a paper their sister...
View ArticleClik here to view.
Are men more likely to commit scientific fraud?
Regular Retraction Watch readers may have noticed that many of the people whose fraud we write about are men. Certainly, the top retraction earners — Yoshitaka Fujii, Joachim Boldt, Diederik Stapel,...
View ArticleClik here to view.
“Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?” New study tries to...
The title of this post is the title of a new study in PLOS ONE by three researchers whose names Retraction Watch readers may find familiar: Grant Steen, Arturo Casadevall, and Ferric Fang. Together and...
View ArticleClik here to view.
Does science need a retraction “shame list?”
A pair of engineering researchers has analyzed the work of a handful of prolific scientific fraudsters, and has concluded that science needs a “shame list” to deter future misconduct. The paper,...
View ArticleClik here to view.
“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...
View ArticleClik here to view.
“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...
View ArticleIs it time for a Retraction Index?
We often hear — with data to back the statement — that top-tier journals, ranked by impact factor, retract more papers than lower-tier journals. For example, when Murat Cokol and colleagues compared...
View ArticleWill a new literature format “radically alter” how scientists write, review,...
A group of authors at a Pittsburgh company have proposed a new way to write, review, and read scientific papers that they claim will “radically alter the creation and use of credible knowledge for the...
View ArticleMajority of retractions are due to misconduct: Study confirms opaque notices...
A new study out in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) today finds that two-thirds of retractions are because of some form of misconduct — a figure that’s higher than previously...
View ArticleMost retraction notices don’t involve research misconduct or flawed data: new...
October, apparently, is “studies of retractions month.” First there was a groundbreaking study in PNAS, then an NBER working paper, and yesterday PLoS Medicine alerted us to a paper their sister...
View ArticleAre men more likely to commit scientific fraud?
Regular Retraction Watch readers may have noticed that many of the people whose fraud we write about are men. Certainly, the top retraction earners — Yoshitaka Fujii, Joachim Boldt, Diederik Stapel,...
View Article“Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?” New study tries to...
The title of this post is the title of a new study in PLOS ONE by three researchers whose names Retraction Watch readers may find familiar: Grant Steen, Arturo Casadevall, and Ferric Fang. Together and...
View ArticleAre retractions more frequent in stem cell research?
There are a number of fields that seem to punch above their weight on Retraction Watch: Anesthesiology, home to the world record holder (and runner-up), and psychology, home to Diederik Stapel and...
View Article“Not faithful” figures kill apoptosis paper
A paper on apoptosis in mice has been retracted by Infection and Immunity after a reader tipped them off that several figures were “not faithful representations of the original data.” When the journal,...
View ArticlePoll: What to do when peer review feels inadequate?
How should scientists think about papers that have undergone what appears to be a cursory peer review? Perhaps the papers were reviewed in a day — or less — or simply green-lighted by an editor,...
View ArticleAnother “first author has accepted responsibility” retraction from immunity...
Scientists have pulled their 2013 Infection and Immunity paper after a reader noticed duplicated data in three figures, and the first author was “unable to provide the original data used to construct...
View ArticlePressure 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...
View Article
