Tag Archives: Retraction Watch
Gender equity in retractions
From the abstract of a fascinating study published in PLoS ONE on May 3, 2023: … this study investigated gender differences in authorship of retracted papers in biomedical sciences available on RetractionWatch. Among 35,635 biomedical articles retracted between 1970 and … Continue reading
Posted in Analysis, Science
Tagged ETH Zurich, Marcella Carollo, PLoS ONE, research misconduct, research papers, retraction, Retraction Watch, women in science, women in STEM
Comments Off on Gender equity in retractions
Why it’s important to address plagiarism
Plagiarism is a tricky issue. If it’s straightforward to you, ask yourself if you’re assuming that the plagiariser (plagiarist?) is fluent in reading and writing, but especially writing, English. The answer’s probably ‘yes’. This is because for someone entering into … Continue reading
NCBS fracas: In defence of celebrating retractions
Continuing from here… Irrespective of Arati Ramesh’s words and actions, I find every retraction worth celebrating because how hard-won retractions in general have been, in India and abroad. I don’t know how often papers coauthored by Indian scientists are retracted … Continue reading
Posted in Analysis, Science
Tagged Arati Ramesh, Brahmins, casteism, Elisabeth Bik, National Centre for Biological Sciences, Retraction Watch, retractions, self-correcting, Sunil Laxman, zombie citations
Comments Off on NCBS fracas: In defence of celebrating retractions
Dealing with plagiarism? Look at thy neighbour
Four doctors affiliated with Kathmandu University (KU) in Nepal are going to be fired because they plagiarised data in two papers. The papers were retracted last year from the Bali Medical Journal, where they had been published. A dean at … Continue reading
Posted in Life notes, Scicomm
Tagged Bali Medical Journal, English, Kathmandu University, plagiarism, Praveen Chaddah, Retraction Watch, retractions
Comments Off on Dealing with plagiarism? Look at thy neighbour
A conference’s peer-review was found to be sort of random, but whose fault is it?
It’s not a good time for peer-review. Sure, if you’ve been a regular reader of Retraction Watch, it’s never been a good time for peer-review. But aside from that, the process has increasingly been taking the brunt for not being … Continue reading
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged arbitrariness, conditional probability, Corinna Cortes, double-blind peer-review, National Institutes of Health, Neil Lawrence, Neural Information Processing Systems conference, peer review, Retraction Watch, scientific publishing
Comments Off on A conference’s peer-review was found to be sort of random, but whose fault is it?