About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

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

with 11 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 »

About these ads

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

leave a comment »

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

Article using tin foil, cling wrap to debunk ocean warming retracted after urgent peer review

with 3 comments

wessexA conference proceedings paper that attempted to debunk ocean warming due to climate change using tin foil and cling wrap has been retracted by the Wessex Institute of Technology (WIT) Press.

The paper, “A Comparison Of The Efficacy Of Greenhouse Gas Forcing And Solar Forcing,” was published as part of the proceedings of a July 2014 conference in Spain called Heat Transfer 2014.

Here’s what author Robert (Bob) A. Irvine, about whom we haven’t been able to find information, claimed to have done in the paper: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Cat Ferguson

October 21, 2014 at 9:30 am

Authors retract green coffee bean diet paper touted by Dr. Oz

with 16 comments

green coffee beanTwo authors of a 2012 paper sponsored by a company that made grand claims about green coffee bean extract’s abilities to help people lose weight have retracted it. The study was cited by The Dr. Oz Show, and last month it cost the company a $3.5 million settlement with the Feds.

Here’s the notice for “Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, linear dose, crossover study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a green coffee bean extract in overweight subjects,” a paper originally published in Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity: Targets and Therapy: Read the rest of this entry »

Journal of Neuroscience still won’t explain author-initiated retractions

with 6 comments

journal of neuroscienceThe Journal of Neuroscience hasn’t changed its policy of not explaining retractions if authors don’t want to, as this October 8 notice attests.

Here’s the notice for “Coordinated Regulation of Hepatic Energy Stores by Leptin and Hypothalamic Agouti-Related Protein:” Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Cat Ferguson

October 20, 2014 at 9:30 am

Weekend reads: “Too good to be true” results; the paper as an “artificial landmark”

with 9 comments

booksThe week at Retraction Watch kicked off with news of the European Science Foundation threatening to sue a scientist for calling a review process “flawed.” Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ivan Oransky

October 18, 2014 at 9:30 am

Posted in weekend reads

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 35,755 other followers