About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

The case of the three retracted Penises

with 18 comments

Marc Abrahams, of Improbable Research and the Ig Nobels, found something remarkable earlier this evening, as he is wont to do:

von-boningThat’s right, a paper written by two Penises and a von Boning. But much to Abrahams’ chagrin, he notes:

…that citation turned out to be mangled — filled with typos. Here’s the real citation [you can click on the link to get to the study, if that's your idea of a good time]:

C Perris, W A Arrindell, H Perris,M Eisemann, J van der Ende,and L von Knorring, Perceived depriving parental rearing and depression. BJP February 1986 148:170-5;

Abrahams got as excited as a…lepton when he found another Penis in the literature, A. Delgado Penis. But he was foiled again — or perhaps we should say Boyled again, since it was NBC News Digital’s Alan Boyle who pointed out that this too was a typo. It’s Peris.

However, Abrahams’ loss is our gain. For, dear readers, we now have the case of the three retracted Penises.

None of this should be confused with a detachable penis, however:

About these ads

Written by Ivan Oransky

September 17, 2013 at 10:05 pm

18 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. For what is worth, “Delgado” means “Thin” or “Narrow” so A. Delgado Penis, well, yeah.


    September 17, 2013 at 10:16 pm

    • Oh, and one could have mistaken that for a seminal paper in the area!..


      September 18, 2013 at 5:47 am

      • I guess we’ve become hardened to such mistakes in the literature.


        September 18, 2013 at 9:27 am

  2. A literature search several years ago revealed an author named “Fuck.” I just did a Google Scholar search on the name and received 188,000 hits.

    J Buck

    September 18, 2013 at 7:28 am

  3. King Missile is the bomb! The line about finding it on blanket next to a bunch of broken toasters is one of my favorite lyrics of all time.

    Back on topic though – this does bring up another issue… Searching for errata or corrections (e.g., on PubMed) is easy, because those words are not used very much in a scientific context, other than to indicate the correction of an article. However, searching for retractions brings up all kinds of papers about neuronal projections, retracted penises and what have you. Actually finding papers listed as retracted, is not an easy thing to so (especially of late, since PubMed is lagging behind in updating their listings).

    Paul Brookes

    September 18, 2013 at 9:22 am

  4. a very respectable crystallographic programmer is called Alexei Vagin, Vagin A in Pubmed


    September 18, 2013 at 9:52 am

    • his sister(s), if he has them, would be called…


      September 18, 2013 at 9:56 am

  5. Having a readily-mockable last name has one benefit: People tend to remember it..

    Ken Pimple

    September 18, 2013 at 12:06 pm

  6. I can’t help laughing. We need something “funny”.

    Henry Galveston

    September 18, 2013 at 10:22 pm

  7. I wonder whether this can be attributed to many people entering “penis” on reCAPTCHA questions, following 4chans hack of the TIME 100 poll …



    September 20, 2013 at 9:12 am

  8. It’s a pity that there are so many boners being made with these citations.

    The Iron Chemist

    September 20, 2013 at 11:40 am

  9. I’ve read of a ‘psychosomatic disorder’ in Malaysia (?) Nigeria (?) where a person is convinced that his penis has disappeared/been stolen.


    September 20, 2013 at 10:47 pm

  10. Nothing beats Ovarian teratoma in a bitch.” by Headley SA, Fuck EJ, Fuck ET, Curti CE (2006).

    Neuroskeptic (@Neuro_Skeptic)

    September 21, 2013 at 6:07 am

    • Amazing!!! And guess what, I got to the .pdf, gave it a read, also checked on the authors CVs and dissertations, and the paper seems quite honest!!

      But I will be showing to all of my friends: just too good.


      September 21, 2013 at 12:18 pm

    • Just thought the following thread on this topic would amuse many: http://blog.3bulls.net/archives/1420


      September 22, 2013 at 1:18 am

  11. Despite the penises that have been retracted, it looks as though the semen is very much still in there: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/full/10.3109/09687688.2013.828856

    Dr Samuel Furse

    September 27, 2013 at 1:52 am

We welcome comments. Please read our comments policy at http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/the-retraction-watch-faq/ and leave your comment below.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 35,791 other followers

%d bloggers like this: