JACI is the journal with the poorest experience that I ever encountered as an author and as a reviewer. The editors never adequately responded to numerous errors in an earlier paper where I sent a long letter describing all details.
And it is a nightmare – even now with more than 100 corrigenda in this journal – as the editorial office even modified correctly submitted images. Yes, the JACI editor published also falsified data.
Only recently I also found another strange retraction note
The Publisher regrets that this article is an accidental duplication of an article that has already been published in J Allergy Clin Immunol
while the link of this retraction note goes to https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24892183 which is, however, a different paper.
It seem that the journal already lost the overview…
Retractions are increasing anytime I look around retraction watch. A new PNAS paper now has the most thorough analysis of retractions:
A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error. In contrast, 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%) …fraud has increased ∼10-fold since 1975.
So, fraud is the most frequent cause – and it usually does not come isolated Continue reading The true reason for retractions? →
There is an interesting new dissertation (“Ulrich Frey. Der blinde Fleck. Kognitive Fehler in der Wissenschaft und ihre evolutionsbiologischen Grundlagen”) that contains a nice game
Continue reading How to do better research →