About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Weekend reads: How to rescue science, what “censorship” really means, worst paper of the year?

with one comment

booksAnother very busy week at Retraction Watch. There were a lot of gems elsewhere. Here’s a sampling: Read the rest of this entry »

About these ads

Written by ivanoransky

April 19, 2014 at 10:11 am

Authors retract study suggesting magnesium prevents Alzheimer’s in mice

leave a comment »

j neuroscienceThe authors of a 2013 Journal of Neuroscience study suggesting that “elevation of brain magnesium…may have therapeutic potential for treating [Alzheimer's disease] in humans” have retracted it after finding errors in the work.

Here’s the original abstract:

Read the rest of this entry »

Doing the right thing: Physicists retract paper after becoming aware of “a fundamental error”

with one comment

prl-bannerThe authors of a paper in Physical Review Letters have retracted it, after another researcher pointed out a mistake.

F. Sattin and D.F. Escande write in the notice for “Alfvénic Propagation: A Key to Nonlocal Effects in Magnetized Plasmas” (which is behind a paywall) that after the paper was published, they “we became aware of a fundamental error in the normalization of our equations.” Excerpt: Read the rest of this entry »

Stem cell researcher in Korea up to half a dozen retractions

leave a comment »

stem cellsAlmost two years ago, we brought you — with the help of Trevor Stokes — the story of a stem cell researcher in Korea whose publication record, and career, unraveled after evidence of image manipulation surfaced in her work.

We’ve reported on four retractions, all in Antioxidants & Redox Signaling, by Soo-Kyung Kang, formerly of Seoul National University resulting from the efforts of a whistleblower. There has been another in Human Gene Therapy: Read the rest of this entry »

Publisher to pulp existing copies of science communication book because of plagiarism

with 5 comments

speight bookThe publisher Taylor & Francis has decided to pulp all existing copies of a 2012 book on science communication, and suspend electronic copies indefinitely, after it became clear that the text was plagiarized from the work of another author.

The book, Clear and Concise Communications for Scientists and Engineers, was written by energy and environmental consultant James G. Speight. According to Colin Purrington — the creator of a very popular poster tips site whose past attempts to protect his intellectual property may be familiar to Retraction Watch readers — pages 166-169 are “largely copied” from Purrington’s page on scientific poster design.

In a letter to Taylor & Francis, Purrington wrote:

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by ivanoransky

April 17, 2014 at 3:13 pm

Heart study retracted because it was submitted without permission of most of the authors

with 4 comments

clincardcoverA group of authors in South Korea has lost their 2012 paper in Clinical Cardiology because, well, they weren’t a group after all.

The paper, “Correlation of Electrocardiographic Changes and Myocardial Fibrosis in Patients With Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Detected by Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging,” came from corresponding author of Konkuk University School of Medicine in Seoul, and a half-dozen colleagues. At least, that’s what the manuscript said.

But according to the retraction notice, Yang had nothing to do with the paper — nor did five other co-authors. Read the rest of this entry »

Data highjinx forces retraction of tumor paper in JBC

with 6 comments

jbccover414The Journal of Biological Chemistry has an illuminating retraction notice — we’re happy to be able to say — about a 2001 article from a group of researchers at the National University of Singapore.

The paper, “Intracellular acidification triggered by mitochondrial-derived hydrogen peroxide is an effector mechanism for drug-induced apoptosis in tumor cells,” was written by Jayshree L. Hirpara, Marie-Véronique Clément and Shazib Pervaiz.

It has has been cited 110 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge. According to the retraction notice: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by amarcus41

April 17, 2014 at 9:30 am


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 31,187 other followers