Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process
Retraction Watch's Latest Posts
The Journal of Neuroscience has yanked an Alzheimer’s paper and banned three University of Pennsylvania authors from publishing there temporarily, following conflicting investigations by the university and the publisher, the Society for Neuroscience, into the data. The 2011 paper looked into the cellular makeup of the characteristic plaques that develop in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s disease. […]The post SfN journal retracts paper, bans UPenn […]
Two more retractions have popped up for Nasser Chegini, the former University of Florida professor currently under investigation by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI). Both retractions appear in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, though — in opposition to guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) — they’re behind a paywall. The notices indicate that […]The post Ob-gyn prof up to 7 retractions, latest due to […]
Weekend reads: P values banned, climate skeptic fails to disclose corporate funding, editors behaving badly
This week at Retraction Watch featured a change of heart by a journal, and a look at Nature’s addition of double-blind peer review. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: A psychology journal bans null hypothesis significance testing, aka “bans P values,” which led to a rapidly filling inbox for Andrew Gelman. Willie Soon, a climate change […]The post Weekend reads: P values banned, climate skeptic fails to disclose corporate funding, editors behaving badly appeared […]
Here’s another installment of PubPeer Selections: Citation, schmitation: “This paper cites two papers of mine, that happen to be completely unrelated to the topic discussed, as far as I can see.” “I hope this settles; practice makes perfect, and the samples would have probably been ordered better on the gel had it was run today, […]The post PubPeer Selections: Odd citations, “practice makes perfect,” a Nature update appeared first on Retraction Watch.
A team of researchers whose work is under investigation by University College London has retracted a second paper. Three of the 11 authors of the 2005 Journal of Cell Science paper being retracted — David Latchman, Richard Knight, and Anastasis Stephanou — were authors of a Journal of Biological Chemistry paper retracted in January. Stephanou […]The post Prominent geneticist David Latchman’s group notches second retraction appeared first on Retraction Watch.
Log in to leave a comment