About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Former NIH lab director faked findings in three papers: ORI

with 2 comments

ori logoThe former director  of the X-ray crystallography lab at the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, part of the National Institutes of Health, faked findings in three papers, according to the Office of Research Integrity.

Two of the three papers by Bijan Ahvazi were published in 2004, and later retracted in 2007, while the other was rejected: Read the rest of this entry »

About these ads

Written by Ivan Oransky

October 31, 2014 at 8:00 am

What was behind an oddly-worded dental retraction? The authors stole someone’s thesis

with one comment

Image via Tambako

Image via Tambako

A dentistry journal has retracted a paper after discovering the research was lifted from dissertation work by two people unrelated to the paper authors.

Here’s the notice for “Treatment of mandibular angle fracture with a 2 mm, 3-dimensional rectangular grid compression miniplates: A prospective clinical study“: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Cat Ferguson

October 30, 2014 at 2:25 pm

Will journal finally retract fraudulent paper 10 months after an official request?

leave a comment »

ChemosphereElsevier journal Chemosphere may finally retract a paper it learned contained fabricated data in January when a member of the author’s institution requested the paper be retracted.

The paper has been cited at least once since the lies came to light, as we reported earlier this month.

The journal contacted the relevant parties on October 29 with the following email about “Degradation of 2,4-dinitroanisole (DNAN) by metabolic cooperative activity of Pseudomonas sp. strain FK357andRhodococcus imtechensis strain RKJ300,” although no notice has been posted: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Cat Ferguson

October 30, 2014 at 11:30 am

PubPeer Selections: On an “immodest title;” authors recalculate findings in response to questions

with 2 comments

pubpeerHere’s another installment of PubPeer Selections: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ivan Oransky

October 30, 2014 at 9:30 am

Posted in pubpeer selections

Structure error sinks NIH-MIT-SNU peptide paper

leave a comment »

CHBIOL_21_9.c1.inddA mistake in structure identification has sunk a paper by researchers at the NIH, MIT, and Seoul National University in the Cell Press journal Chemistry and Biology.

Here’s the notice for “Peptide-Based Inhibitors of Plk1 Polo-box Domain Containing Mono-anionic Phosphothreonine Esters and Their Pivaloyloxymethyl Prodrugs”: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Cat Ferguson

October 29, 2014 at 11:30 am

Boldt’s data were fake in 1996 paper

with 8 comments

Update, 4 p.m. EST, 10/29/14: As a commenter points out, we didn’t quite get this one right. The Boldt paper that has been retracted was not previously retracted for lack of IRB approval. Rather, it was a heretofore unretracted article, from 1996, which German investigators have determined contained faked data. We’ve made edits below using strikethroughs, and have changed the headline to better reflect the content. We apologize for the errors.

We’ve commented before on the fact that we’ve noticed there’s often more to retractions whose stated reason is lack of institutional review board (IRB) approval. We can understand editors’ inclination to act as quickly as possible to issue a retraction, the scientific publishing equivalent of jailing Al Capone for tax evasion. But we appreciate it even more when said editors return to the scene of the crime, as it were, when new important details come out.

Case in point: Anesthesia & Analgesia has amended its retraction of a 2009 1996 study by Joachim Boldt — who with nearly 90 retractions once held the record in that department — based on findings that the data in that paper were fabricated.

The article was titled “Cardiopulmonary bypass priming using a high dose of a balanced hydroxyethyl starch versus an albumin-based priming strategy,” “The effects of albumin versus hydroxyethyl starch solution on cardiorespiratory and circulatory variables in critically ill patient.”  had previously been retracted because Boldt had failed to obtain adequate ethics approval for the research. But now comes this, According to the retraction notice from editor in chief Steven Shafer: Read the rest of this entry »

Authors retract two spectroscopy papers when follow-up results don’t match

with one comment

analytical methodsThe authors of two spectroscopy papers in Royal Society of Chemistry journals have retracted them.

Here’s the notice for “Determination of silk fibroin secondary structure by terahertz time domain spectroscopy” (free, but requires sign-in) in Analytical Methods, which is almost identical to this notice in Analyst: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Cat Ferguson

October 28, 2014 at 11:30 am

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 35,971 other followers