After typing up 96 citations, researchers from the National Institute for Digestive Diseases, I.R.C.C.S. “S. de Bellis,” in Bari, Italy, apparently ran out of steam for the last five, earning themselves a retraction for plagiarism in a literature review of the effects of probiotics on intestinal cancer.
Publishing gadfly demands journal editor’s resignation, then has “fairly incomprehensible” paper rejected
A scientific publishing gadfly who was banned earlier this year from an Elsevier journal for “personal attacks and threats” has had a paper rejected by a Springer journal after he called for the editor’s resignation because of alleged incompetence.
As detailed in a comment left at Retraction Watch, Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva submitted a manuscript titled “One Conjunction, a World of Ethical Difference: How Elsevier, the ICMJE and Neurology Define Authorship” to Science and Engineering Ethics on November 11, 2012. As of last week, despite a number of messages sent to editors of the journal, he had not had a decision on the manuscript.
As a result, on July 14 of this year, Teixeira da Silva sent this letter to journal editor Raymond Spier and to Stephanie Bird, an editorial board member assigned to the manuscript: Read the rest of this entry »
A missed withdrawal request has ed to doubled up publication and a later retraction for Brazilian physicists, through no fault of their own.
“Atmospheric Plasma Treatment of Carbon Fibers for Enhancement of Their Adhesion Properties” was presented at an Institute of Physics (IOP) conference in 2010. The proceedings weren’t published until May 2014.
In the meantime, the plasma scientists withdrew their paper from consideration and submitted it to IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, where it was published in February 2013. Unfortunately, in the four year delay between the conference and the Institute of Physics publication, the withdrawal request got lost.
Weekend reads: How to fix “slow,” “unhelpful,” and “generally awful” peer review, where all the PhDs go
Another busy week at Retraction Watch, but there was lots happening elsewhere, too: Read the rest of this entry »
Last week, we reported that PLoS ONE was retracting three papers by the research group because “there are no data available underlying this study and thus…the published results are fabricated.” Now, according to The Hindu, four more papers are being retracted:
Read the rest of this entry »