About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Heart paper will go on, but only in the first of two journals it was published in

with 2 comments

Cardiovascular ResearchA cardiovascular group has retracted a conference proceeding abstract, because it too closely resembled a paper they published prior to the conference.

The last author is baffled as to why the journal couldn’t have made that call before they published the abstract.

Here’s the notice for “Increased beta-adrenergic inotropy in ventricular myocardium from Trpm4 knockout mice”: Read the rest of this entry »

About these ads

Failure to disclose drug company sponsor among litany of reasons for cancer retraction

leave a comment »

tumor biologyThis one’s a real mess.

In June, a paper in Tumor Biology was retracted for at least four reasons, including bad data and hiding a trial sponsor (Merck). Some people who contributed work weren’t cited; at least one author had no idea his name would be on it. And that’s just what they tell us in the notice.

Here’s the notice for “Neutropenia and invasive fungal infection in patients with hematological malignancies treated with chemotherapy: a multicenter, prospective, non-interventional study in China:” Read the rest of this entry »

Authors retract PNAS paper questioned on PubPeer after original films can’t be found

with 18 comments

pnas31912PubPeer leads the way again: The authors of a paper about Parkinson’s disease in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) have retracted it, several months after a commenter highlighted the exact issue that led to the article’s demise.

The paper, originally published in September 2013, was called into question by a commenter on PubPeer in July 2014, who identified two of the paper’s figures as duplications: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Cat Ferguson

October 23, 2014 at 10:30 am

Dr. Oz: Following green coffee bean diet retraction, site scrubbed, “further study is needed”

with 4 comments

Doing the right thing: Authors retract PNAS paper when new experiments show “conclusion was incorrect”

with 18 comments

pnascoverResearchers in Sweden and Australia have retracted a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) after follow-up experiments disproved their conclusions.

Here’s the notice for “Dominant suppression of inflammation by glycan-hydrolyzed IgG,” which is signed by all nine of the paper’s authors: Read the rest of this entry »

“Editors are pleased to receive death threats on the third Thursday of the month:” A new journal launches

with 3 comments

inferenceThere’s a new journal in town.

Inference’s first issue includes a lengthy review of a laboratory by a tennis instructor, a set of caricatures, and an exchange of emails from 1996 that is “perhaps, less remarkable for what it says than for the fact that it took place at all.”

In short, its editors — who “would prefer to remain anonymous” — seem to share a sense of humor with the editors of the Journal of Universal Rejection or the Proceedings of the Natural Institute of Science: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ivan Oransky

October 22, 2014 at 9:30 am

Posted in RW announcements

PubPeer Selections: More stem cell questions; “is the hassle of a correction really needed?”

with one comment

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

Written by Ivan Oransky

October 21, 2014 at 11:30 am

Posted in pubpeer selections

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 35,815 other followers