Eight Papers Retracted From Journal

AP ^ | Thu Oct 31, 2:10 PM ET | PAUL RECER

[Junior]

A "Science at work" piece

[Junior]

Ping

[Asclepius]

... Schon, the committee found, "did this intentionally or recklessly and without the knowledge of any of his co-authors" ...

This seems to happening a lot lately in academia. At least they tend to police themselves, i.e. you hear no calls for congressional hearings or regulatory intervention etc.

This is the absolute worst outcome for an academic, by the way.

[Cicero]

Well, actually, you have to admire the honesty and remarkable speed with which these papers seem to have been retracted. Usually when this happens things go back and forth for years, the perp never confesses, and everybody pretends not to know whether it was fraudulent or not. And the whistle-blower probably loses his job.

What Haddon says is perfectly plausible. He contributed to an idea that another scientist seemingly took further, so he thought he deserved to be listed as a co-author. Probably he didn't have the lab setup required to check out Schon's supposed findings so he accepted them on good faith.

Hundreds of thousands of technical papers come out, and no one can read or check all of them. So fraud may not be suspected until someone tries to duplicate an experiment or make further use of an idea.

At least Haddon had some reason to allow his name to appear as co-author, because he thought he had contributed to a discovery. As an outsider I am somewhat more bewildered by cases where senior scientists or lab heads take credit from junior ones although they had no actual input at all into the experiments. But I suppose if scientists think that's OK there's no point in arguing with them.

[LiteKeeper]

bump for later

[js1138]

Can't wait for the "all science is fraud" crowd to check in. I give this thread about 30 more posts before meltdown.

[Aracelis]

Interesting evidence that science continues to be self-correcting.

[RLK]

This seems to happening a lot lately in academia.

-------------------------

It's been going on for decades and longer.

[FreedomPoster]

I wonder when more of Bellesiles past lies will be unearthed. I'm not holding my breath.

[Asclepius]

... It's been going on for decades and longer ...

Around 250 years, actually. Peer reviewing as a hedge against bad science or shoddy research, as a formal, as a programmatic, institutional practice goes back at least to the Port Royal Society. What I meant was simply that the pendulum appears to be swinging toward greater rigor and higher standards, this after years of it swinging in the other direction, toward really, really questionable research.

Heads are rolling everywhere.

[PatrickHenry]

Can't wait for the "all science is fraud" crowd to check in. I give this thread about 30 more posts before meltdown.

Perhaps, as a show of solidarity with their fellow researchers, the clowns at the Creation Research Institute will now withdraw each and every one of their bogus claims.

[VRWC_minion]

If it works why did it get published ? This is like saying Arthuer Andersens audits worked because 2 years later we discovered the fraud. Were are the reviewers on this ?

As a CPA, this wouldn't work in my business. If you folks look at this as some endorsement of your faith in published science I would ask you to rethink your conclusion. How are you so sure that other peer reviewed articles are not also suspect ? If you really believe in a system that polices itself you ought to be outraged about this gey getting so many for so long.

[Condorman]

Interesting evidence that science continues to be self-correcting.

It has been known to happen from time to time.

[Condorman]

Blast! You beat me to it.

[RikaStrom]

Haddon said that when researchers combine their studies to produce a single paper, each scientist depends upon the honesty of work contributed by the other co-authors. That, he said, is the way science is supposed to work.

I'm sorry, but if I were going to put my name on a document, especially as a co-author, I would make damn sure that everything in it was correct and provable. (walking away, shaking my head)

Trust, but verify.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I have removed my name from papers where I though the rest of the work was shoddy.

On the other hand, I always try to describe my results and methods in enough detail to allow independent verification.

[Billthedrill]

Mostly the reason some of this stuff makes it by peer review is that to replicate the entire experiment takes specialized gear or costs a good deal for the makin's. So the reviewer looks at methodology and logic flow and takes in on faith that the stated methods resulted in the stated results.

It's sad, really - the guy was a "superstar" - always treat this with suspicion in science - whose career in independent research is essentially over. I can' imagine a more effective way to poison a grant application now than to put his name on it anywhere.

[Billthedrill]

"can'" = "can't" - Monday morning fingers...

[Robert A Cook PE]

Funny, the morality of this "scienctific genious" seems a bit lacking ....

- I wonder what his political affiliation was .....

[Junior]

Peer review consists of other researchers attempting to recreate a researcher's work. That is how frauds get caught. The other researchers cannot review the original researcher's work until that work is published.