Accounting professor gets 30 retractions of his papers after misconduct finding.
in 2014, a university investigation concluded that Hunton fabricated data in two papers and may have destroyed evidence. The first paper was the one retracted from Accounting Review for a misstatement; the second was retracted from Contemporary Accounting Research in December 2014. Even though the investigation centered around two publications, the university suggested more may be affected. This month, the Journal of Accounting Research has pulled three papers co-authored by Hunton and published an expression of concern about a fourth that included some of his data.
Is withholding your data simply bad science, or should it fall under scientific misconduct?
A recent study sent data requests to 200 authors of economics articles where it was stated ‘data available upon request’. Most of the authors refused. What does the scientific community think about those withholding their data? Are they guilty of scientific misconduct? Nicole Janz argues that if you don’t share your data, you are breaking professional standards in research, and are thus committing scientific misconduct. Classifying data secrecy as misconduct may be a harsh, but it is a necessary step.
Only 44% provided the data on request. We are not talking about data that cannot be shared due to confidentiality or privacy concerns – obviously it is fine not to make these data public. In fact, the study had not addressed authors that did not promise to publish their data. Only those who stated that ‘data are available on request’ were targeted.
BioMed Central retracting 43 papers for fake peer review
BioMed Central is retracting 43 papers, following their investigation into 50 papers that raised suspicions of fake peer review, possibly involving third-party companies selling the service. BMC has also contacted institutions regarding 60 additional papers that were rejected for publication, but seem to be part of the same kind of scam.
Just a sample and I could go on and on and on.