Early coffee: Traction, retraction, and self-plagiarism (when scientists retread what they should retire)

"This study reports evidence consistent with the ‘deliberate fraud’ hypothesis. The results suggest that papers retracted because of data fabrication or falsification represent a calculated effort to deceive.":

Med Ethics doi:10.1136/jme.2010.038125

Research ethics

Retractions in the scientific literature: do authors deliberately commit research fraud?

R Grant Steen
Correspondence to
R Grant Steen, Medical Communications Consultants LLC, 103 Van Doren Place, Chapel Hill, NC 27517, USA; g_steen_medicc@yahoo.com
Received 31 May 2010
Revised 29 July 2010
Accepted 13 August 2010
Published Online First 15 November 2010
Abstract
Background Papers retracted for fraud (data fabrication or data falsification) may represent a deliberate effort to deceive, a motivation fundamentally different from papers retracted for error. It is hypothesised that fraudulent authors target journals with a high impact f actor (IF), have other fraudulent publications, diffuse responsibility across many co-authors, delay retracting fraudulent papers and publish from countries with a weak research infrastructure.

Methods All 788 English language research papers retracted from the PubMed database between 2000 and 2010 were evaluated. Data pertinent to each retracted paper were abstracted from the paper and the reasons for retraction were derived from the retraction notice and dichoto mised as fraud or error. Data for each retracted article were entered in an Excel spreadsheet for analysis.

Results Journal IF was higher for fraudulent papers (p<0.001). 2="8.71;">

For comments go here "The highest number of retracted papers were written by US first authors (260), accounting for a third of the total. One in three of these was attributed to fraud.", or here (An excellent example of either crappy science reporting or crappy science ...), for the view that it's all a bum rap.

One site also offers a number of articles on the shortcomings of peer review. Also an article on self-plagiarism and one on self-plagiarism and bogus authorship.

Self-plagiarism? If I plagiarize myself, can I sue myself?

Self-Plagiarist dies of his pains,
When "Been done!" the reviewer complains.
He was suing himself
In a courtroom in Guelph,
And his spectre now sues his remains.

News brief: Darwin lobbyist's retraction of accusations against ID advocate published in California Wild

In a move that may be a victory for reasonable discussion of the problems around Darwinism, National Center for Science Education's executive director, Eugenie Scott, has retracted her assertions against California lawyer and ID advocate, Larry Caldwell. She states in a Letter to the Editor :

Further investigation suggests that the books Refuting Evolution and Life: How Did It Get Here? were submitted to the Roseville school board by other residents, not by Larry Caldwell, and were not considered after submission. [ ... ]

Finally, the person described by a scientist as having a "gross misunderstanding of the nature of science" in his analysis of the Holt textbook was not Caldwell. [ ... ]

and her name appears below it.

(Note: If this is not the story you were looking for, see the Blog service note below or the stories listed in the sidebar. )

That letter is followed by Caldwell's own letter, where he says, among other things,

Contrary to false statements and implications in Scott's article, I never asked the district to ban or limit the teaching of evolution in biology classes, or to present the Bible or the Genesis account of creation in biology classes, or to teach creation science, or young-earth creation, or intelligent design theory in biology classes, and our district's board of trustees never considered implementing any such policy for its biology classes. Contrary to Scott's claim, our board also never "declared that . . . [any] creationist materials would be 'recommended' but not required."

Contrary to false statements and implications in Scott's article, I never asked the district to ban or limit the teaching of evolution in biology classes, or to present the Bible or the Genesis account of creation in biology classes, or to teach creation science, or young-earth creation, or intelligent design theory in biology classes, and our district's board of trustees never considered implementing any such policy for its biology classes. Contrary to Scott's claim, our board also never "declared that . . . [any] creationist materials would be 'recommended' but not required."

Scott also falsely claims that I purportedly "offered a stack of supplemental books and videotapes that . . . [included] a young-earth creationist book, Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Safarti; and the Jehovah's Witness book Life: How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or Creation? Thanks to its free distribution, this book is probably the most widely-circulated creation science book in the country."

The truth: I had never even heard of these two books until I read Scott's article. I never proposed these books, or any other "young-earth creationist," "creation science," "creationist," or ID books or materials for use in the classroom.

As I said in the beginning, Eugenie Scott's article contains much more science fiction than fact about me and my QSE Policy, and about what really happened in the evolution debate in the Roseville Joint Union High School District.

The public policy debate over how we should teach evolution in America is too important to be based on such science fiction. At stake is whether our students will receive a quality science education, in which they learn the truth about evolution, or a science indoctrination, in which the truth is hidden from them.

Wow. I have covered this beat for years, and this is the first time I can recall seeing anyone like Caldwell actually allowed to just explain the facts of the case without any mainstream legacy media spin at all. Things must be changing. (Mind you, it helps to be a California attorney ... )

Groups like NCSE that claim they want to improve science education should be happy to co-operate with the process of getting basic facts right without the threat of a lawsuit. Let's hope that the outcome is more open discussion of the problems of Darwinism. But even if that does not happen any time soon, justice was served in this case.

Here's a link to the original story about the California Academy of Sciences agreeing to correct potentially libellous statements about attorney Larry Caldwell, who thinks that students should know about weaknesses as well as strengths of Darwinian evolution theory.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.