Skip to main content

It's Fine

Most retracted articles are not the result of misconduct, a recent PLOS One article reports.

Michael Grieneisen and Minghua Zhang from Wenzhou Medical College in China and the University of California Davis examined nearly 4,500 scholarly papers that were retracted between 1928 and 2011. Publishing misconduct was the most common reason for retraction, followed by questionable data or questionable interpretation of data.

Further, Grieneisen and Zhang note that, "though widespread, only miniscule percentages of publications for individual years, countries, journals, or disciplines have been retracted. Fifteen prolific individuals accounted for more than half of all retractions due to alleged research misconduct, and strongly influenced all retraction characteristics."

Over at Retraction Watch, Ivan Oransky says that this was a "comprehensive" look at a large number of retractions, but he also notes that the study has a number of weakness as it relies on retraction notes themselves — which may not clearly state the reasons for a retraction— as well as relies on a classification system that may have grouped one type of misconduct as an error.

The Scan

Call to Look Again

More than a dozen researchers penned a letter in Science saying a previous investigation into the origin of SARS-CoV-2 did not give theories equal consideration.

Not Always Trusted

In a new poll, slightly more than half of US adults have a great deal or quite a lot of trust in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Hill reports.

Identified Decades Later

A genetic genealogy approach has identified "Christy Crystal Creek," the New York Times reports.

Science Papers Report on Splicing Enhancer, Point of Care Test for Sexual Transmitted Disease

In Science this week: a novel RNA structural element that acts as a splicing enhancer, and more.