Why is it so damn hard to get a paper retracted?
Despite the real-time scrutiny of internet publication, getting a paper retracted or corrected turns out to be nearly impossible.
Send us a link
How quality control could save your science
It may not be sexy, but quality assurance is becoming a crucial part of lab life.
Don't let transparency damage science
Stephan Lewandowsky and Dorothy Bishop explain how the research community should protect its members from harassment, while encouraging the openness that has become essential to science.
How scientists are doing a bait-and-switch with medical data
Researchers are “choosing their lottery numbers after seeing the draw”, making medicine less reliable - and respected journals are letting them do it.
Why researchers keep citing retracted papers
Some papers cite the retracted work to examine the retraction itself. Others may simply be pointing out that the findings of a withdrawn paper have been proven false.
Use of positive and negative words in scientific PubMed abstracts between 1974 and 2014
Use of positive and negative words in scientific PubMed abstracts between 1974 and 2014
Analyzing three decades' worth of PubMed-indexed abstracts, scientists find a notable increase in the frequency of positive words, like "innovative" and "novel", over time.
Secret dossier on research fraud suggests government concern over science
‘Too many institutions’ are ready to ‘sweep fraud under the carpet’.
The distribution of probability values in medical abstracts
The distribution of p-values in reported medical abstracts provides evidence for systematic error in the reporting of p-values..
Chief Coca-Cola scientist leaves amid criticism over obesity research
Research shifted focus away from harms of sugary drinks to exercise benefits.
Are more retractions due to more scrutiny?
The question has actually been addressed in the scientific literature and the data don’t seem to support this assumption.
How much should scientists check other scientists' work?
A debate is growing in the research world over the value of replicating older, peer-reviewed studies.
Publish or perish culture encourages scientists to cut corners
We need to ensure the reward and support structures in academia promote the best practices rather than corner cutting.
The journal that couldn't stop citing itself
In a four-paragraph editorial published in 2014, the "Journal of Criminal Justice" made 47 citations, all of other pieces that had appeared in the same publication.
'Overflow' of new research 'erodes trust between scientists'
According to a new paper, the "deluge" of new scientific papers that academics have to read makes it all but impossible to know what research to trust.
Scientific disintegrity as a public bad
Scientific dishonesty essentially results from an incentive problem.
Overflow in science and its implications for trust
‘Overflow’ has important implications for the integrity of modern biomedical science.
Fifth retraction for Voinnet follows correction
After correcting a paper due to problematic figure panels, researchers led by Olivier Voinnet have now retracted it.
Men are more likely than women to engage in self-citation
[11]A new study found that 31% of men engage in self-citation, compared to only 21% of women.
64 more papers retracted for fake reviews, this time from Springer journals
Springer is pulling another 64 articles from 10 journals after finding evidence of faked peer reviews, bringing the total number of retractions from the phenomenon north of 230.
Valuing research rectitude
Peer review may not spot fraud – so universities need to be vigilant in tackling any wrongdoing among their staff.
The importance of indifference in scientific research
"Making non-attachment a central part of science education would beat the hell out of ethics classes and regulations about the use of Photoshop in preparing figures."
We discovered one of social science's biggest frauds. Here's what we learned.
What are the right lessons to draw from the rise in scientific retractions?
Fifth retraction for famous Robert Weinberg
Another domino has fallen in a chain of retractions for Robert Weinberg, the man who discovered the first tumor-causing gene in humans.
Misconduct policies, academic culture and career stage, not gender or pressures to publish, affect scientific integrity
Misconduct policies, academic culture and career stage, not gender or pressures to publish, affect scientific integrity
Efforts to reduce and prevent misconduct might be most effective if focused on promoting research integrity policies, improving mentoring and training, and encouraging transparent communication amongst researchers.
Vaccine researcher sentenced to prison for fraud
The case of Dong-Pyou Han illustrates the uneven nature of penalties for scientific misconduct.
Incidence of data duplications in a randomly selected pool of Life Sciences
This study questions the reliability of life science literature, it illustrates that data duplications are widespread and independent of journal impact factor and call for a reform of the current peer review and retraction process of scientific publishing.
The Retraction Watch Leaderboard
Who has the most retractions? Here's the Retraction Watch list.
Retraction of scientific papers for fraud or bias is just the tip of the iceberg
Investigating fraud is hard work, and it is easier for journal editors to ignore the problem and perpetuate the myth that peer review of trial reports ensures their scientific quality.
Paper disputes causes of research misconduct
Productive researchers with high-impact papers and those working in countries were the pressure to publish is intense are less likely to produce retracted papers and are more likely to correct them.
×