About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Former UT-Southwestern cancer researchers faked data in 10 papers: ORI

with one comment

ut southwesternThe Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has ruled in a case we’ve been following for nearly two years — and which seems to have been launched after Retraction Watch readers took a careful look at figures from what seemed to be an unrelated case.

Takao Takahashi and Makato Suzuki, both former postdocs at a cancer research center at UT-Southwestern, both “knowingly, intentionally, and recklessly falsified data” in a total of 10 papers, according to the ORI. Takahashi, now at Gifu University in Japan, was responsible for fakery in four papers, while Suzuki, now at Kumamoto University Hospital, also in Japan, falsified data in six.

We reported on the retraction of the four Takahashi papers, and one of the Suzuki papers, in November 2012. At that time, Adi Gazdar, the head of the lab where the researchers worked, told us that Read the rest of this entry »

About these ads

Written by Ivan Oransky

September 18, 2014 at 7:58 am

Publisher updates with more info on staph retraction

with 2 comments

cidWe brought you this story last week, about a paper on drug resistant staph being retracted for a lab error. Now, we’ve got an update from Rachel Safer, senior editor for medical journals at Oxford University Press, where the paper was published.

Apparently, the researchers “inadvertently relied upon the use of a test system that was not approved for the microorganism studied in their paper,” leading to the retraction, and the corresponding author of the study wasn’t initially all that responsive:

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Cat Ferguson

September 17, 2014 at 11:30 am

A PNAS expression of concern appears — and so does its revealing backstory

with 16 comments

pnas 1113When retraction notices and expressions of concern appear, particularly those that are opaque, we try our best to find out what’s behind them, whether it’s better explanations or the steps that led to moves. Today, we have one story in which we’ve been able to learn a lot more than usual.

In April, Bas van Steensel, Wendy Bickmore, Thomas Cremer, and Kerstin Bystricky sent a letter to about 80 leading labs in nuclear organization and steroid receptor biology. It began (we’ve added some relevant links): Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ivan Oransky

September 17, 2014 at 9:30 am

Another retraction for Diederik Stapel, this one from Dutch drama festival on “truth and reality”

with 6 comments

stapel_npcHere’s a case of art imitating science.

The organizers of a Dutch drama festival have put a halt to a play about the disgraced social psychologist Diederik Stapel, prompting protests from the authors of the skit — one of whom is Stapel himself.

According to an article in NRC Handelsblad: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Adam Marcus

September 16, 2014 at 2:15 pm

Posted in diederik stapel

PubPeer Selections: “Meta-rant” about Science paper; posting raw data satisfies critics; was gel splicing ever OK?

with 9 comments

pubpeerHere’s another installment of PubPeer Selections:

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ivan Oransky

September 16, 2014 at 11:30 am

Posted in pubpeer selections

What should an ideal retraction notice look like? We (and COPE) want your input

with 11 comments

copeLast week, we announced a new partnership with PRE (Peer Review Evaluation) “to improve access to information about retraction policies.” The first step, we and PRE said, was that Retraction Watch would create guidelines for retraction notices, to which PRE’s flagship product, PRE-val, would link.

Well, it turns out that great minds think alike, or along similar lines, anyway. Today we learned that next week, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) will be discussing a standard retraction form proposed by friend of Retraction Watch Hervé Maisonneuve, who has published several papers on retractions.  According to a writeup: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ivan Oransky

September 16, 2014 at 9:30 am

Posted in RW announcements

Hayabusa Science retraction made official, but behind a paywall

leave a comment »

science 62714Science has published the retraction of a 2006 paper about an asteroid, following a report in its news pages that the study’s authors had requested the move.

Here’s the paywalled — tsk, tsk — notice: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ivan Oransky

September 15, 2014 at 11:30 am


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 34,856 other followers