Recent articles Here.
It used to be, people weren’t looking into it much. At one time, anyone could burble about how “peer review” separates science from nonsense, making science—in the process—a setup for fraud.
Faking data earns stem cell researcher a ban on federal funding
Italian researcher facing criminal charges notches seventh retraction
Alfredo Fusco, a researcher in Italy under criminal investigation, now has a seventh retraction for manipulated images.
JCI lymphoma paper retracted after authors can’t find underlying data to explain duplicated bands
Plagiarism scandal tarnishes student newspaper at Trinity College, Dublin
Phantom authorship forces retraction of electron paper
Weekend reads: Death of a scientist; Science, the Lake Wobegon of experiments
Is Rolling Stone retracting its story on UVA sexual assault?
COPD paper in JCI retracted following PubPeer critiques
Note: The story above that your news writer, O’Leary for News, can comment on re the type of circumstances covered is the Rolling Stone one:
It should not have been printed, period. There were too many holes, not enough hard evidence.
Note: Writers sometimes prefer the expression “well-sourced” to “true.” One is not saying that people aren’t telling the truth, so far as they know it. Rather that non-fiction lives in the non- part—that is, the well-sourced part. The story could be correct or otherwise but should be traceably sourced. Look, it’s the same with life on Mars (more our concern here). Let’s see the evidence.
Also, I’ve helped friends through the agony of stories they thought would wreck their careers because —this is the worst of it—the stories were true, to the best of our ability to source them, but dangerous to the writer—because they exposed influential people to criticism.
If only journalism could go back to that kind of a problem, it’d be way healthier today.
See also: Don’t let Mars fool you. Those exoplanets teem with life!