5 Top Retracted Science Papers of 2014

[barbc56]

Publish or perish, that's the motto in academia. Or is that publish and perish? For researchers, the race to have their work printed in peer-reviewed science journals can be messy — and sometimes, some of them sacrifice integrity in the process.

Later, they find they did this only to be embarrassed by a retraction of their work.

A study published in 2013 in the journal PLOS ONE found that retractions are on the rise, although the researchers couldn't determine why. The phenomenon may be due to a lower barrier to publishing; for example, so-called "predatory" online journals guarantee publication regardless of quality — for a price. But still, many recent retractions stem from fraudulent, rather than sloppy, science.

http://m.livescience.com/49266-retracted-science-papers-2014.html

Barb

 

[WillowJ]

The FTC charged that the study's lead investigator altered the weights and other key measurements of the participants in the study, and committed numerous other scientific sins.

How do we interest the FTC in other studies with "numerous scientific sins". They might not be selling supplements, but they are selling a service...

 

[Woolie]

@barbc56, thanks for this. Entertaining - if somewhat alarming - reading!

I loved this:

the paper "Ethics and Integrity of the Publishing Process: Myths, Facts, and a Roadmap," retracted because of plagiarism

 

[Sean]

Here's to PACE being one of those retracted in 2015.

 

[Little Bluestem]

This is scary!

According to complaints filed against Macchiarini, only one of the three patients signed a consent form for the operation, and that form was dated more than two weeks after the surgery.

 

[barbc56]

@Woolie @Little Bluestem

You can't make this stuff up. I don't know whether to laugh or cry!

Barb