《科学家》盘点2014年受关注撤稿事件

2014-12-25 王汉森 王汉森博客

《科学家》杂志12 月23日发表文章,列举了2014年10起最为人们关注的撤稿事件。你认为第几个最逗? A look at this year’s most memorable retractions By Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky  | December 23, 2014 This year, stories ab

《科学家》杂志12 月23日发表文章,列举了2014年10起最为人们关注的撤稿事件。你认为第几个最逗?

A look at this year’s most memorable retractions

By   | December 23, 2014

This year, stories about scientific retractions were dominated by big numbers—60 at once in one case, 120 in one fell swoop in another—as well as the eyebrow-raising practice of researchers submitting fake peer reviews, often ones they themselves had written. Here are our picks for the top 10 stories, in no particular order.

1. It would be difficult to chronicle 2014’s key retractions without noting the two STAP stem cell paper retractions fromNature. Readers detected significant problems with the research, and Haruko Obokata, who led the studies, was ultimately unable to replicate the findingsNature has defended its decision to publish the articles, saying editors couldn’t have detected the errorsScience, however, had earlier rejected one of the manuscripts for being too flawed to publish. One of Obokata’s colleagues, Yoshiki Sasai, was not responsible for any misconduct, but committed suicide following the scandal.

2. Although this story technically broke last year, it was late enough not to make our 2013 list, and the retraction happened in 2014: A former researcher at Iowa State University (ISU) spiked rabbit blood samples with human blood to make it look as though his HIV vaccine was working. Dong-Pyou Han is now facing criminal charges, and ISU was forced to pay back nearly $500,000 of his salary—both rare events.

3. In July, the publisher SAGE retracted 60 articles from the Journal of Vibration and Control after an investigation revealed a “peer review and citation ring” in which at least one professor in Taiwan, Peter Chen, allegedly assumed false identities to promote his own work.

4. Just two weeks after publishing a paper on the psychology of Facebook users, PNASissued an Expression of Concern about the work. The article’s many critics complained that the study violated ethical norms because it did not alert participants that they were taking part in a research project. As The Atlantic put it: “Even the Editor of Facebook’s Mood Study Thought It Was Creepy.”

5. Two major publishers were caught out after having published more than 120 bogus papers produced by the random text generator SCIgen. French computer scientist Cyril Labbé of Joseph Fourier University in Grenoble catalogued computer-generated papers that made it into more than 30 published conference proceedings between 2008 and 2013. Sixteen appeared in publications by Springer, and more than 100 were published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE).

6. So much for science in the public interest: Bowing to commercial pressure, the authors of a paper in the African Journal of Food Sciences on cassava yanked it after a company claimed the article was damaging to its business.

7. A highly controversial 2012 study retracted in 2013 resurfaced this year. The paper by Gilles-Eric Séralini and colleagues on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and rats was republished—without going through peer review, according to the editor of the journal where it ran.

8. The investigation into the work of social psychologist Jens Förster, which has been going on for most of the year, resulted in its first retraction in November. Förster, who is accused of manipulating data, has vehemently denied wrongdoing.

9. Stem cell research popped up on Retraction Watch a number of times this year. In one significant case,Circulationretracted a 2012 study by a group of Harvard heart specialists over concerns of corrupt data, and the university is investigating. There has also been an expression of concern in The Lancet. The group was led by Piero Anversa, a leading cardiologist, who along with a colleague filed suit against the institution on the grounds that the inquiry was damaging to his career prospects.

10. Finally, in the last few weeks of the year, Elsevier retracted 16 papers by one researcher after it became clear thatfake peer reviews were behind the acceptances of Khalid Zaman’s papers.

Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky are co-founders of Retraction Watch.

版权声明:
本网站所有内容来源注明为“梅斯医学”或“MedSci原创”的文字、图片和音视频资料,版权均属于梅斯医学所有。非经授权,任何媒体、网站或个人不得转载,授权转载时须注明来源为“梅斯医学”。其它来源的文章系转载文章,或“梅斯号”自媒体发布的文章,仅系出于传递更多信息之目的,本站仅负责审核内容合规,其内容不代表本站立场,本站不负责内容的准确性和版权。如果存在侵权、或不希望被转载的媒体或个人可与我们联系,我们将立即进行删除处理。
在此留言
评论区 (1)
#插入话题
  1. [GetPortalCommentsPageByObjectIdResponse(id=2006842, encodeId=184120068428c, content=<a href='/topic/show?id=881f56995c2' target=_blank style='color:#2F92EE;'>#撤稿事件#</a>, beContent=null, objectType=article, channel=null, level=null, likeNumber=69, replyNumber=0, topicName=null, topicId=null, topicList=[TopicDto(id=56995, encryptionId=881f56995c2, topicName=撤稿事件)], attachment=null, authenticateStatus=null, createdAvatar=https://thirdqq.qlogo.cn/qqapp/1103841572/7F67E3BE360D6DD1D0A62E3E71E23CB6/100, createdBy=9d8a2500148, createdName=ms8888626721583891, createdTime=Sun Aug 16 23:35:00 CST 2015, time=2015-08-16, status=1, ipAttribution=)]

相关资讯

学术论文撤稿数十年激增十倍 3/4源自学术不端

    去年《自然》杂志(Nature)报道称,学术论文撤稿数在近十年激增十倍之多,每年撤销的科研论文超过300篇。     部分研究表明,实验差错是大多数论文撤稿的原因,然而在本周发表的一篇文章对论文撤稿进行了更深入的分析,对于这种善意的假设提出了质疑。     这篇研究报道刊登于《美国国家科学院院刊》

“转基因玉米致癌”论文被撤稿

法国研究人员2012年在《食品和化学毒物学》杂志上发表转基因玉米致癌论文,已成为部分人士反对转基因食品的重要证据。但杂志出版方爱思唯尔公司28日在美国宣布,由于进一步分析显示论文数据不足以支持其结论,因此决定撤除这篇论文。    爱思唯尔公司在声明中说,《食品和化学毒物学》杂志对所发表的论文及论文所报告的数据进行了彻底的、长时间的分析,对论文发表的同行评议过

Nature:反思!期刊越好,撤稿为何反而越多?

小保方晴子 在最近发生的一系列学术期刊的撤稿风波中,研究者们通过社交媒体讨论了他们常年的“最爱”:一份已经发表了三年的研究期刊影响因子和撤稿频率间关系的论文。 这份2011年的论文提出了“撤稿指数”( retraction index)这一概念,描述发表在某刊物上的论文最终被撤稿的可能性。作者对从2001至2010年发表在17家期刊的论文进行了统计,绘出了每种期刊的撤稿指数和影响因子的对应