Ivan Oransky on Scientific Papers - The Body of Evidence (Interview

Posted by Dr Gary Allen in Research Integrity on December 8, 2020
Keywords: Analysis, Breaches, Journal, Medical research, Research Misconduct, Research results, Researcher responsibilities

The Linked Original Item was Posted On November 22, 2020

We recommend listening to this interview, even with the squirrel fight at the start

Chris and Jonathan interview Dr Ivan Oransky, the co-founder of Retraction Watch which tracks retractions of scientific papers. They discuss how papers get published, how they get retracted, and what a better system might look like.

1:29 How scientific papers get published
3:44 Journals are businesses with a bizarre business model
13:52 No more COVID-related retractions than expected
17:10 Science by press release in part to prevent insider trading
20:04 Jade amulets against COVID-19
26:33 Zombie papers
30:43 A dramatic increase in retractions but they are still rare
36:50 Why are mistakes caught after publication?
42:20 Going to science heaven

Listen to the interview

‘An isolated incident’: Should reviewers check references? – Retraction Watch (Adam Marcus | September 2020)

(Taiwan) Low ethics standards encourage plagiarism – Taipei Times (Tai Po-fen 戴伯芬 | August 2020)

(EU) French hydroxychloroquine study has “major methodological shortcomings” and is “fully irresponsible,” says review, but is not being retracted – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | July 2019)

(Australia and Canada) ‘How I got fooled’: The story behind the retraction of a study of gamers – Retraction Watch (Leto Sapunar | June 2020)

“I was shocked. I felt physically ill.” And still, she corrected the record – Retraction Watch (Adam Marcus | March 2020)

‘Avalanche’ of spider-paper retractions shakes behavioural-ecology community – Nature (Giuliana Viglione | February 2020)

(Russia) Putin wanted Russian science to top the world. Then a huge academic scandal blew up – The Washington Post (Robyn Dixon | January 2020)

‘Science by tweet’ prompts expression of concern, irking authors – Retraction Watch (Adam Marcus | October 2019)

‘Misunderstanding of the academic rules’ leads to retraction of arthritis paper – Retraction Watch (Adam Marcus | October 2019)

(Australian case) A researcher with 30 retractions and counting: The whistleblower speaks – Retraction Watch (Artemisia Stricta | October 2019)

(Australia) Materials scientist will soon be up to 30 retractions – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | October 2019)

(Australian case) A publisher just retracted 22 articles. And the whistleblower is just getting started – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | September 2019)

‘Search for inspiration’ lands too close to plagiarism, forcing retraction of grief paper – Retraction Watch (Adam Marcus | April 2019)

“Our current approaches are not working:” Time to make misconduct investigation reports public, says integrity expert – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | June 2019)

(Japan) When researchers from a particular country dominate retraction statistics, what does it mean? – Retraction Watch (Iekuni Ichikawa | October 2018)

(Australian and New Zealand case with international coauthors) Big journal, big correction (Alison Abritis | February 2018)

“A concerning – largely unrecognised – threat to patient safety:” Nursing reviews cite retracted trials – Retraction Watch (Alison McCook | January 2018)

(China) Nearly 500 researchers guilty of misconduct, says Chinese gov’t investigation (Alison McCook | August 2017)

(China) Fake peer review, forged authors, fake funding: Everything’s wrong with brain cancer paper – Retraction Watch (Victoria Stern | July 2017)

ACN - 101321555 | ABN - 39101321555

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

The Linked Original Item was Posted On November 22, 2020

Related Reading

‘An isolated incident’: Should reviewers check references? – Retraction Watch (Adam Marcus | September 2020)

(Taiwan) Low ethics standards encourage plagiarism – Taipei Times (Tai Po-fen 戴伯芬 | August 2020)

(EU) French hydroxychloroquine study has “major methodological shortcomings” and is “fully irresponsible,” says review, but is not being retracted – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | July 2019)

(Australia and Canada) ‘How I got fooled’: The story behind the retraction of a study of gamers – Retraction Watch (Leto Sapunar | June 2020)

“I was shocked. I felt physically ill.” And still, she corrected the record – Retraction Watch (Adam Marcus | March 2020)

‘Avalanche’ of spider-paper retractions shakes behavioural-ecology community – Nature (Giuliana Viglione | February 2020)

(Russia) Putin wanted Russian science to top the world. Then a huge academic scandal blew up – The Washington Post (Robyn Dixon | January 2020)

‘Science by tweet’ prompts expression of concern, irking authors – Retraction Watch (Adam Marcus | October 2019)

‘Misunderstanding of the academic rules’ leads to retraction of arthritis paper – Retraction Watch (Adam Marcus | October 2019)

(Australian case) A researcher with 30 retractions and counting: The whistleblower speaks – Retraction Watch (Artemisia Stricta | October 2019)

(Australia) Materials scientist will soon be up to 30 retractions – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | October 2019)

(Australian case) A publisher just retracted 22 articles. And the whistleblower is just getting started – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | September 2019)

‘Search for inspiration’ lands too close to plagiarism, forcing retraction of grief paper – Retraction Watch (Adam Marcus | April 2019)

“Our current approaches are not working:” Time to make misconduct investigation reports public, says integrity expert – Retraction Watch (Ivan Oransky | June 2019)

(Japan) When researchers from a particular country dominate retraction statistics, what does it mean? – Retraction Watch (Iekuni Ichikawa | October 2018)

(Australian and New Zealand case with international coauthors) Big journal, big correction (Alison Abritis | February 2018)

“A concerning – largely unrecognised – threat to patient safety:” Nursing reviews cite retracted trials – Retraction Watch (Alison McCook | January 2018)

(China) Nearly 500 researchers guilty of misconduct, says Chinese gov’t investigation (Alison McCook | August 2017)

(China) Fake peer review, forged authors, fake funding: Everything’s wrong with brain cancer paper – Retraction Watch (Victoria Stern | July 2017)

(China) Record retractions put focus on research misconduct – University World News (Yojana Sharma | April 2017)

(Australia) 4th retraction for neuroscientist sentenced for fraud – Retraction Watch (Dalmeet Singh Chawla July 2016)

(News from Brazil) Sharp rise in scientific paper retractions – University World News (Rodrigo de Oliveira Andrade 2015)

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Related Links

Complaints against Research Ethics Monthly

Request a Takedown

Submission Guidelines

About the Research Ethics Monthly

About subscribing to the Research Ethics Monthly

Research Ethics Monthly Receive copies of the Research Ethics Monthly directly
by email. We will never spam you.

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

ACN - 101321555 | ABN - 39101321555

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)