Comments on: What people are saying about Retraction Watch

By: fernando pessoa

fernando pessoa — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 00:13:20 +0000

http://o.canada.com/2013/01/29/mcgill-university-finds-scientists-published-falsified-images/

By: Sergei Jargin

Sergei Jargin — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 06:56:26 +0000

Jargin SV. Some aspects of mutation research after a low-dose radiation exposure. Mutation Research 2012;749(1-2):101-2; author reply 103-4.

By: Ressci Integrity

Ressci Integrity — Tue, 25 Dec 2012 02:35:21 +0000

i totally missed this out. What were the irregularities in the above papers especially from Dubrova YE. I am interested in knowing this. Thanks.

By: Ellis Glazier

Ellis Glazier — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 19:52:57 +0000

After a whole lifetime spent in science, I often wondered how newcomers would ever know that a paper they were reading and extracting information was false. Your Web site gives all scientists a way of checking against the literature so that none of us can be led down the garden path.
It is true that papers can be removed from web sites or at least posted as being problematic, but because I have been in science since 1950 I am more used to looking at the printed material for which there can be no notification in the older literature.

By: Fernando Pessoa

Fernando Pessoa — Sat, 29 Sep 2012 09:13:40 +0000

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/13/scientific-research-fraud-bad-practice

“Ivan Oransky, editor of the Retraction Watch blog that collects examples of retracted papers, argues: “The reason the public stops trusting institutions is when [its members] say things like, ‘There’s nothing to see here, let us handle it,’ and then they find out about something bad that happened that nobody handled. That’s when mistrust builds.”

By: Sergei Jargin

Sergei Jargin — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:09:58 +0000

Criticism of scientific misconduct in the former SU

Since 1998, we (in plural because other colleagues participated but have reasons not to disclose their names) have commented on scientific misconduct in Russia [1-20], including self-criticism [1,2]; the only appreciable result being personal trouble. We denounced plagiarism [3,4], misquoting [3,5,6], manipulations with statistics [3,7], inadequate planning of research [8-12], application of invasive procedures without sufficient indications [2,9,13] etc. The criticism has been either ignored [9,10,14] or replied formally, leaving some arguments uncommented [21-25]. A concluding point is that criticism of scientific misconduct is a thankless activity at least in today’s Russia, where, to the best of our knowledge, no articles have been retracted so far, while unreliable materials continue to be published and defended as dissertations.

References
1. Iargin SV. The message about unreliability of publications. Klin Khir. 2011;(6):69-70. (Russian)
2. Jargin SV. Renal biopsy research in the former Soviet Union: prevention of a negligent custom. ISRN Nephrology 2013; Article 980859.
3. Jargin SV. Scientific misconduct. Dermatopathol: Pract & Conc 2008 ; 14(2); continued in 2009 ; 15(1,2,4) and 2010; 16(1-4). Available at: https://derm101.com/indexDPC
4. Jargin SV. Plagiarism in radiology: A substitute for importation of foreign handbooks. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2010;54(1):50-2.
5. Jargin SV. Overestimation of Chernobyl consequences: poorly substantiated information published. Radiat Environ Biophys. 2010;49(4):743-5; author reply 747-8.
6. Jargin SV. Overestimating Chernobyl’s consequences: motives and tools. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2011;5(3):175-6.
7. Jargin SV. Use of mathematical statistics for detection of manipulations with numerical data and specimens. Molodoi Uchenyi (Young Scientist) 2012;(9):41-22. http://www.moluch.ru/archive/44/5326/ (Russian)
8. Jargin SV. Some aspects of mutation research after a low-dose radiation exposure. Mutat Res. 2012; doi: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2012.09.002
9. Jargin SV. Surfactant preparations for tuberculosis and other diseases beyond infancy: a letter from Russia. Tuberculosis (Edinb). 2012;92(3):280-2.
10. Jargin SV. Testing of serum atherogenicity in cell cultures: questionable data published. Ger Med Sci. 2012;10:Doc02.
11. Jargin SV. Radioprotective properties of water with low content of stable isotopes: critical evaluation. Fiziologia-Physiology 2010;20.4(68):30-40.
12. Jargin SV. Pathology in the former Soviet Union: scientific misconduct and related phenomena. Dermatol Pract Concept 2011;1(1):16. http://dx.doi.org/10.5826/dpc.0101a16
13. Jargin SV. Unnecessary operations: a letter from Russian pathologist. Int J Surg. 2010;8(5):409-10.
14. Jargin SV. Overestimation of Chernobyl consequences: biophysical aspects. Radiat Environ Biophys. 2009;48(3):341-4.
15. Jargin SV. Thyroid cancer after chernobyl: obfuscated truth. Dose Response. 2011;9(4):471-6.
16. Jargin SV. Russian pathology and scientific misconduct. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2009;52(3):443.
17. Jargin SV. Discussion of Evaluation of cholesterol-lowering and antioxidant properties of sugar cane policosanols in hamsters and humans. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2009;34(1):75; discussion 76-7.
18. Jargin SV. Re: Involvement of ubiquitination and sumoylation in bladder lesions induced by persistent long-term low dose ionizing radiation in humans and Re: DNA damage repair in bladder urothelium after the Chernobyl accident in Ukraine. J Urol. 2007;177(2):794.
19. Jargin SV. Over-estimation of radiation-induced malignancy after the Chernobyl accident. Virchows Arch. 2007;451(1):105-6.
20. Jargin SV. Overestimation of Chernobyl consequences: calculation of a latent period for tumors with unproven radiation etiology. Radiat Environ Biophys. 2009;48(4):433-4.
21. Romanenko AM et al. Reply by Authors. Re: Involvement of ubiquitination and sumoylation in bladder lesions induced by persistent long-term low dose ionizing radiation in humans and Re: DNA damage repair in bladder urothelium after the Chernobyl accident in Ukraine. J Urol. 2007;177(2): 794-5.
22. Romanenko AM et al. Response from authors of ” Extracellular matrix alterations in conventional renal cell carcinomas by tissue microarray profiling influenced by the persistent, long-term, low-dose ionizing radiation exposure in humans”. Virchows Arch. 2007;451(1):107-8.
23. Ivanov VK. Response to “Overestimation of Chernobyl consequences: calculation of a latent period for tumors with unproven radiation etiology” by S.V. Jargin. Radiat Environ Biophys. 2009;48(4):435.
24. Yablokov A & Nesterenko A. Reply to letter by Jargin on “Overestimation of Chernobyl consequences: poorly substantiated information published”. Radiat Environ Biophys. 2010;49(4):747-8.
25. Dubrova YE. Reply to the letter by SV Jargin. Mutat Res. 2012; doi: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2012.09.003

By: fernando pessoa

fernando pessoa — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 03:27:32 +0000

O Canada!

Retraction watch cited in Canada’s premier newspaper.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09/11/university-of-waterloo-researchers-issue-retraction-and-apology-after-using-u-s-experts-text-and-information/

By: David Hardman

David Hardman — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 17:26:00 +0000

In reply to Richard Haigh June 19, 2012 at 3:41 pm

“Instead of a retraction watch website would not an admin watch website be better?”

Instead of instead, in addition.

How should one measure them? What index is there of admin output? Their incomes would count as negative.

By: Toby Esterhase

Toby Esterhase — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:44:38 +0000

There is a puzzling thing about retracted papers still being cited after their retraction. This of course is easily explained if authors are just not aware of the fact. On the other hand if you can still download retracted papers from the Journal, you might be easily fooled into believing they are OK. This happens all te time. A recent review on epilepsy for instance (Seizure Vol. 21: 3–11, 2012), cites and article retracted in 2009(!) from Nature Genetics involving chloride channel ClC-2 in epilepsy. This article, retracted because it contained fabricated data, can still be retrieved from the Nature Genetics website. If it is retracted it is retracted, and should be erased from the database….surely (?).

By: Richard Haigh

Richard Haigh — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:41:45 +0000

The increase in retractions of scientific papers is interesting, but I wonder what are the underlying cause(s)? In recent years there seems an increasing pressure on academics to publish. Principally this comes from their host institutions as a form of staff management: academics are increasingly made to feel watched by the administrative departments of their own institutions. Their performance is measured in terms of the publication output; consequently, much work is regurgitated. It is my contention that this ‘fear-culture’ causes people to take risks and cut corners, and this is in point of fact the cause of the increase in retracted articles. If then it is the desire of the host institution to exert ever more control over academic staff, that causes this problem, do we not make an error in watching the academics and not the administrative staff? Instead of a retraction watch website would not an admin watch website be better?