About Ivan Oransky
Thanks for visiting Retraction Watch. I’m Ivan Oransky, the executive editor of Reuters Health. I teach medical journalism at New York University’s Science, Health, and Environmental Reporting Program, and I’m the treasurer of the Association of Health Care Journalists. The views here do not necessarily represent those of any of those organizations.
In the past, I’ve been managing editor, online, of Scientific American, deputy editor of The Scientist, and editor-in-chief of the now-defunct Praxis Post. For three years, I taught in the health and medicine track at the City University of New York’s Graduate School of Journalism.
I earned my bachelor’s at Harvard, where I was executive editor of The Harvard Crimson, and my MD at the New York University of School of Medicine, where I hold an appointment as clinical assistant professor of medicine.
For more on what this blog is about, see its first post and this interview transcript. Please also visit my other blog, Embargo Watch. Follow me on Twitter — @ivanoransky — or email me at ivan-oransky at erols.com.
I am very interested in the information you have about various types of fraud. I am getting involved in the reproducible research issue, which means several things: 1) data well defined 2) methods expressed in a way to be redone 3) papers with a clear path from data to results. One issue that I am interested in is the degree to which “fraud” is actually “sloppy and careless work”. Potti for instance – is he a fraudster, or just a person who needed to hire a competent database person?
Are you keeping records of frauds, classified in various ways? If not, perhaps you should establish a “fraud database”, in which you classify frauds in terms of a) number of distinct actions b) number of persons involved c) papers which result d) citations of papers e) actions from frauds f) how fraud was discovered and so forth.
Paul Thompson
January 31, 2011 at 2:04 pm
Hi Paul–I’m not the audience you’re addressing, but have you seen this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/science/rise-in-scientific-journal-retractions-prompts-calls-for-reform.html?pagewanted=all
There’s a stacked bar graph you’ll like.
Tim
Tim
February 6, 2013 at 12:37 pm
ever seen this one??
really upsets me
they retracted a figure!!!
from pretty high profile lab so …go figure
http://www.cell.com/molecular-cell/fulltext/S1097-2765%2803%2900241-7
cugel
February 4, 2011 at 5:47 pm
TERRIFIC blog. Wondering how I had not come across this earlier!
Dr. Skeptic
February 23, 2011 at 11:45 pm
Very nice blog, congratulations!
francesco
March 1, 2011 at 5:53 pm
Great blog. Just curious. Are you interested in every retraction or only interesting/unique/high profile ones? Because I see many retractions in the literature that go unreported here. Is there a place these can be reported or documented, at least for statistical purposes.
Also, do you think the increased number of retractions is leading to an almost blasé attitude towards the topic now? At least for me, if I see a retraction, it isn’t quite “shock horror” as it once was.
stan
March 9, 2011 at 5:07 pm
Thanks! We’re interested in all retractions. We keep a list, and get to as many as we can. We’d be happy to hear about any you come across. My email is in my bio above.
I can’t say whether people have a blase attitude at this point, but it’s certainly possible. We don’t!
ivanoransky
March 9, 2011 at 5:43 pm
I enjoyed hearing your interview on NPR.
By the way, I was a “whistleblower” several years ago. I contacted PNAS about suspicious results in a scientific article that was published in a then current issue, and I hate to say that I’m not sure I’d do it again. The editor(s) read my complaint and the authors’ rebuttal and decided they could find no problem. I felt bad and embarrassed. Oddly enough, four years later, PNAS printed a retraction of that very article (with practically no explanation) except that they acknowledged that a problem had been identified by a “reader”.
C Kloess
September 4, 2011 at 5:54 pm
The most enjoyable thing when reading your blog is that I saw that tiny bits of justice.
SHORT
September 24, 2011 at 7:03 pm
Prevention is best–have you compiled a list of best practices for scholarly authors, especially those research and writing practices that could be generalized across the sciences? Have favorites among others’ books or blogs on scholarly writing that would be helpful to post-docs writing their first few articles?
Your blog with a cup of coffee are my necessary eyeopeners mid-morning daily–thanks!
Ruth Greenwood
September 30, 2011 at 10:19 am
Perhaps you next public presentation could be recorded, it could be great for teaching graduate students!
Mike Klymkowsky
November 28, 2011 at 12:00 pm
Although I applaud vigilance about research misconduct – I think we all need to be accurate about definitions – what are we seeking of and what is the goal.
About 2 years ago I submitted a manuscript in which we described results of an experiment using a technique previously published/used by our group. As part of our description of the method we published a figure which gave an example of the graphic output resulting from our method which was designed to explain how we make our measurement endpoint. This ‘picture/figure’ was not a datapoint but was methodological in nature. In the figure legend we referenced the original article in which the figure was published.
This, unfortunately was considered ‘duplication’ and the response of the editorial office was this might be construed as fraud. If one uses a method not obvious to all and describes it in a new manuscript – is this fraudulent duplication? I hope not. If we cannot be clear about the definition of this problem – we create a new one.
John Parker
November 29, 2011 at 10:03 am
Dear John,
That what happened to you is quite sad. I don’t think that it should never be about being
“holier-than-Thou”,or degenerate into something akin to a modern day “Crucible”.
It should be about putting the record straight.
I can only speak from personal experience, but after a recent high-profile case in Germany many people at the same institute we accused of scientific misconduct, as if everybody commits misconduct, and in the belief that the slightest infraction, or perceived infraction, equalled a number of retractions which you need more than your fingers and thumbs to count. Friends did keep their primary data and records, which of course they could show, but there is a lot of collateral damage though. It is an odd feeling, to worry about things you did quite right. It has calmed down now.
Bernard Soares
November 29, 2011 at 5:25 pm
Parker,
I see your concern, and think it is justified, however it is for the best that science becomes strict about such things. If you made clear to the editors the image came from other sources they cannot say you tried to deceive them (the principle of fraud). But they can say you can be misinterpreted by readers for attempted fraud. And that is apparently what they said. In that point I agree with the journal, they were emphatic in saying that the repetition might be seen as fraud by readers, which can harm both your image and the journal’s. Better be safe. I agree with the journal concerns, and you ought not to take that so hard.
P. S.
November 29, 2011 at 5:42 pm
For this to be considered fraud by a reader, you’d have to be specifically looking for something to construct as fraudulous. The one potential problem is that the figure was used previously in another journal and may thus be under copyright.
Marco
November 30, 2011 at 2:22 am
Hi Ivan,
What a great blog! Safeguarding the integrity of the scientific process is thankless but essential work. Just attended former colleague’s, Steve Shafer’s, talk to the New York State Society of Anesthesiology’s Post Graduate Assembly regarding how, over the course of 1400 emails, he dealt with Boldt’s fraud leading to prosecution and retraction you document here. Fascinating stuff. Dr. Shafer is a mountain of intelligence, insight, integrity and good humor. So fun to see this important work documented by you and Adam Marcus.
Best,
Ben
Ben Unger
December 10, 2011 at 1:04 pm
Thank you very much, journals have noted and many have changed their policies
http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v17/n12/full/nm.2611.html
Schmuck
December 29, 2011 at 1:10 pm
Ivan, thank you for the invaluable work you do. BTW, we are both NYU alums (mine is an MA and Ph.D.). You do all of us proud by your efforts to route out this type of pseudo-scholarship.
Patricia Farrell
January 12, 2012 at 1:06 pm
As a frequent reader of your blog I only have a suggestion: it would be nice to see which are the posts that are more commented. It would be nice to order the posts for number of comments as those more commented would likely be the more interesting and more impactful. thanks again for your work, very nice blog!
francesco
May 23, 2012 at 3:36 pm
Thanks for the good suggestion. The right-hand column is already a bit cramped, but we’ll see what we can do.
ivanoransky
May 25, 2012 at 9:10 am
http://www.nature.com/cr/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/cr201260a.html
aktfamily
June 11, 2012 at 5:47 am
Interesting blog which I just now discovered, and added my email to your subscription list. Thank you!
Here’s one to monitor…..Not yet a retraction but this major climate science paper (already fast-tracked into the first draft of the next IPCC report AR5) has suddenly been put “on hold” just 3 weeks after initial online publication with the Journal of Climate:
notice circulated by the co-authors yesterday June 8, 2012:
==============================================================
Print publication of scientific study put on hold
An issue has been identified in the processing of the data used in the study, “Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium” by Joelle Gergis, Raphael Neukom, Stephen Phipps, Ailie Gallant and David Karoly, accepted for publication in the Journal of Climate.
We are currently reviewing the data and results.
=============================================================
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/6/8/gergis-paper-disappears.html
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/6/7/another-hockey-stick-broken.html
http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/08/gergis-et-al-put-on-hold/
http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/06/gergis-significance/
http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/03/gergis-two-medieval-proxies/
Skiphil
June 9, 2012 at 10:15 am
Erratum notice; at the end editors say that the corrections does not affect the conclusion of the study, but looks it do affect the conclusion, more scoop to follow;
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nn302963v?prevSearch=%2528diamond%2Bnanorods%2529%2Band%2B%255BContrib%253A%2BShang%252C%2BNaigui%255D&searchHistoryKey=
Sciwatch
July 25, 2012 at 4:56 pm
u guys are doing a great job.. just wonder if you have experienced any personal ‘threats’.. following some of these ‘exposes’?
Zbys
August 18, 2012 at 3:41 am
Thanks, Zbys. Other than a cease-and-desist letter from a scientific society that didn’t want us to use their logo, we have not had any threats, personal or otherwise. Certainly there are some who disagree with us, sometimes strongly, but that kind of feedback is welcome.
ivanoransky
August 23, 2012 at 10:22 am
The Wall Street Journal printed an article on August 25 about gaming the citation indices. Two journals have been accused of requiring authors to cite more articles in the journal before they would be published. You can reach the beginning of the article, but must subscribe to read all of it.
JimR
August 26, 2012 at 1:07 pm
Thanks Jim, this link may work: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444082904577609313125942378.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
We reported on the cases that lead off the piece in July: http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/07/05/a-first-papers-retracted-for-citation-manipulation/
ivanoransky
August 26, 2012 at 1:14 pm
Is it not more appropriate to refer to this as the gaming of IF of journals? or inflating of citation indices by self citation?..BTW although its not the only ‘game’ in town I guess those who should know do know the nature of the game and indeed who the ‘high rollers’ are
Zbys
August 27, 2012 at 12:26 am
A possible or likely retraction to watch for: what appears to be deeply flawed and reckless psychology paper now being dissected and shredded by bloggers:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/01/paging-dr-stephan-lewandowsky-show-your-invitation-list/
Skiphil
September 2, 2012 at 4:56 pm
on the topic of dubious psychology papers, Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit has just shredded the Lewandowsky paper and the countdown is on for how long before withdrawal or retraction (publication is listed as “in press”):
Anatomy of the Lewandowsky Scam
Skiphil
September 8, 2012 at 7:50 pm
Controversy ongoing, Lewandowsky has dug in and so far admits no problems, but the very inflammatory title of the paper is unjustified even on his own account of the data, and there seem to be serious problems with the data and analysis. My hyperlink above was broken when Climate Audit re-published the article with a corrected date in the link, but that article and other relevant items can be found here with the “Lewandowsky” keyword:
http://climateaudit.org/tag/lewandowsky/
(lots of relevant info also at WattsUpWithThat, BishopHill, and JoNova, and Lewandowsky has been publishing tendentious screeds in response (8 so far) at his blog ShapingTomorrowsWorld)
No one can say yet how this will end up, but this Lewandowsky et al (2012) is more flawed and the data/analysis more incomplete and distorted than should be considered acceptable for any scientific paper.
Skiphil
September 15, 2012 at 1:16 am
wow… Lewandowsky et al (2012) has NOT appeared to date in the journal Psychological Science, even though it was circulated to media in late July as “in press” and published reports were that it was to appear in this Sept. 2012 issue:
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/23/9.toc
Is there any public info about the status? Can anyone get an honest answer about what is going on with this dubious and now much debunked paper? It’s already has its “release by press release” six weeks ago but the published paper seems to be in some kind of unannounced journal limbo??
Climate Audit: Trying Unsuccessfully to Replicate Lewandowsky
http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/16/trying-unsuccessfully-to-replicate-lewandowsky/
Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K., & Gignac, C. E. (in press). NASA faked the moon landing—therefore (climate) science is a hoax: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science.. Psychological Science.
http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/documents/LskyetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf
Skiphil
September 17, 2012 at 4:27 pm
Ivan,
I have been reading science-fraud.org, and I am concerned that its allegations are generally ignored – in fact googling keywords from its stories gives hits from science-fraud and nowhere else. I understand that RW has a very specific focus, but is there any way that allegations that have not resulted in retractions can be publicised more effectively?
Michael Kovari
September 22, 2012 at 6:02 am
..and you better be quick on this: as you can see Science-Fraud is already being constantly threatened and the good old Abnormal Science Blog has completely vanished from online existence! Maybe one day RW will meet the same fate?
Hibby
November 29, 2012 at 8:04 am
Hi Ivan,
I have been following this blog for some time now and think it’s great! This is not quite a retraction story (yet), but in case you haven’t seen it, it’s fairly ridiculous and thought you would be interested:
http://www.nature.com/news/stem-cell-transplant-claims-debunked-1.11584?WT.ec_id=NEWS-20121016
with some details updated: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/10/stem-cell-claims-by-japanese-res.html?ref=hp
NShah
October 16, 2012 at 1:48 pm
Well spotted! It makes science fun again!
Other things that never really happended may come out soon.
Fernando Pessoa
October 16, 2012 at 4:52 pm
This retraction was until now missed by this site: http://www.scientific.net/AMR.291-294.2750
mark van loosdrecht
November 10, 2012 at 4:05 am
I just found this rather opaque retraction notice in the most recent version of the Journal of Neuroscience. Essentially zero information.
“At the request of the authors, the following manuscript has been retracted: “Spinal 5-HT3 Receptor Activation Induces Behavioral Hypersensitivity via a Neuronal-Glial-Neuronal Signaling Cascade” by Ming Gu, Kan Miyoshi, Ronald Dubner, Wei Guo, Shiping Zou, Ke Ren, Koichi Noguchi, and Feng Wei, which appeared on pages 12823–12836 of the September 7, 2011 issue”
stpnrazr
December 12, 2012 at 3:32 pm
Another retracted article by an Indiana University professor:
http://agbetsiafawords.blogspot.com/2012/09/dr-agbetsiafa-and-wording-in-retracted.html
Alex
February 15, 2013 at 5:22 pm
This is looking like one for your collection:
http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/16/the-marcott-shakun-dating-service/
Skiphil
March 16, 2013 at 6:25 pm
Just have some concerns regarding the Sampaolesi, Cossu, Nature 2006. Using Photoshop, you will notice that the MyHC bands in Figure 4 (Varus and Vampire samples) are identical. They overlay perfectly, although the authors cut off one band on each side (smart). I can send you the Photoshop files but it is obvious!
Asterix
April 28, 2013 at 1:26 am
it might be interesting for you:
deserve to be retracted or just an error?
first version: with identical pictures
Figure 5:(B&E, B is a magnified version of B)also(C&D) :
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1163/092050609X12559317149363
after investigation!!!
second version!!:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09205063.2013.775835
s
April 30, 2013 at 3:07 pm
Cossu was also an author of this retracted paper-
http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2013/01/22/clare-francis-scores-a-bullseye-journal-of-cell-biology-paper-retracted-for-image-manipulation/
michaelhbriggs
April 30, 2013 at 3:42 pm