A central online news resource for professionals involved in the development of medical publications and involved in publication planning and medical writing.
Read Suzanne Farley’s perspectives on the steps one publisher is taking to address the growing problem of research misconduct.
Read Ivan Oransky’s take on the retraction landscape and his perspectives on how to tackle research integrity issues in the future.
Missed the meeting? Read our report on the symposium entitled “Research integrity & the medical communicator: what we do when no one is watching.”
Missed the meeting? Read our report on the symposium entitled “Research integrity & the medical communicator: what we do when no one is watching.”
An analysis by Science Magazine of Retraction Watch’s new database challenges a number of common perceptions surrounding retractions and reveals some important key themes.
A recent study highlights the difficulty in identifying retracted articles in online databases.
Here’s how the power of machine learning could be harnessed to automate the search for fraudulent figure duplications in submitted manuscripts.
Fake reviews continue to be a serious concern in medical publishing, putting data integrity and trust in the scientific community at risk. As recently reported by Retraction Watch, a new … Continue Reading New tool to identify fakes in the peer review process
A major international publisher, Springer Nature, has retracted 107 papers after discovering they had been accepted with fake peer reviews. All 524 authors involved are from China. The news has … Continue Reading [VIDEO] Cancer journal retracts 107 Chinese papers over fake peer-reviews
The pressure on top universities to publish breakthrough basic research in top ranking journals has never been greater, as this can have a direct impact on the degree of funding … Continue Reading BBC investigation suggests official data underestimate scale of ‘fake research’ in UK universities
What should you do if you discover a mistake in one of your publications? The Committee on Publication Ethics recommends retraction of papers where there is: ‘clear evidence that the … Continue Reading Forgive and forget: authors not penalised for self-retraction
Predatory journals exploit the open-access model, charging authors publication fees in return for fast publication, without the associated editorial and publishing services expected from legitimate journals. The number of articles … Continue Reading “Sting” operation exposes predatory publisher
In this video, Rachael Lammey, Member and Community Outreach at Crossref and Council Member of the European Association of Science Editors (EASE), gives a summary of the 13th EASE Conference, … Continue Reading [VIDEO] Highlights from the 2016 conference of the European Association of Science Editors (EASE)
The retraction of scientific papers has increased since the turn of the millennium, and a recent article published in Research Integrity and Peer Review aims to get to the bottom … Continue Reading Retracted data: how far do the ripples spread?
Accurate reporting of data is an essential part of the research process. However, the misreporting of results in biomedical research publications, whether intentional or otherwise, can and does occur. This … Continue Reading Inappropriate image duplication found in 1 in 25 publications
Author: Jo Chapman, PhD (Aspire Scientific Ltd) Over two days last week, around 250 delegates and exhibitors braved sub-zero temperatures to attend the European meeting of the International Society for … Continue Reading Meeting report: Summary of Day 2 of the 2016 European ISMPP Meeting