Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Diabetes researcher Cory Toth now up to nine retractions

with 6 comments

neuroscienceCory Toth is up to nine retractions.

The University of Calgary researcher who told us earlier this year that he “will not be publishing in the world of science in the future” has retracted two papers from Neuroscience.

Here’s the notice for “Local erythropoietin signaling enhances regeneration in peripheral axons:”

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy).

This article has been retracted at the request of the Author.

The Corresponding Author has become aware that Figure 9 had been manipulated. The author’s institution is aware of this issue.

The Authors apologize if the faulty data have misled the readership of Neuroscience.

The paper has been cited 39 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

And here’s the identical notice (except for capitalizations) for “Intranasal delivery of insulin and a nitric oxide synthase inhibitor in an experimental model of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis:”

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy).

This article has been retracted at the request of the author.

The corresponding author has become aware that Figure 9 had been manipulated. The author’s institution is aware of this issue.

The authors apologize if the faulty data have misled the readership of Neuroscience.

The study has been cited 13 times.

Update, 7 p.m. Eastern, 9/3/14: Toth has apparently joined Burnaby Neurology in British Columbia, a medical practice which

is dedicated to the care, understanding and management of diseases of the nervous system.

 

Written by Ivan Oransky

September 2nd, 2014 at 9:30 am

Comments
  • Bobo September 2, 2014 at 10:01 am

    Really? Figure 9 in both cases?

    • JATdS September 2, 2014 at 2:59 pm

      Elsevier seems to have a problem with singular and plural. Author? Authors? Reading the copy-cat notice shows that it is not always too clear which author and/or authors they are referring to. Elsevier needs to get an editing service.

  • dsmyxe September 3, 2014 at 12:15 pm

    I’ve noticed that all nine retracted papers have one other author in common — JA Martinez.

    How is it decided who takes the blame for a retracted paper? Is it usually the corresponding author? Do all authors share blame?

    • JATdS September 3, 2014 at 1:13 pm

      dsmyxe. Does it actually really matter? The NEW rules of the ICMJE state clearly that ALL co-authors should take publc responsibility. So, this indicates that even if one erred, all take the rap. See my comments about this here:
      http://retractionwatch.com/2014/08/27/this-retraction-has-teeth-journal-changes-publication-policy-after-discovering-misconduct/#comments
      Prior to July 29, this could have been an issue of debate, but no longer, I believe. And prior to that date, I would have stated that in most cases, the corresponding author was held accountable, unless the group of authors specifically decided to lay blame upon one or more specific members in the retraction notice. I think individuals like the Steen / Casadevalle / Fanelli camp, who are good at such analyses, could do a good job of analyzing the trend of the “blame factor” in retraction notices prior to and postJuly 29, 2014. It could be very interesting to see how the blame trends before and after this date in retraction notices.

      • Michele Rajput September 3, 2014 at 1:40 pm

        I asked those questions because I often see only one author named when retractions are listed on RW. I haven’t been reading RW for very long so I was genuinely curious about how responsibility is assigned.

        Thanks for the link to your earlier comments. The new rules are not fair. If I perform the statistical analysis of a dataset but did not actually perform the measurements, how can I be responsible if the data was falsified by another author? I feel as if I should be very careful about whom I work with and when I agree to co-author a paper.

        I agree that it would be interesting to see how the new rules impact authorship and blame.

        *****

        I should disclose that I co-authored a paper with Dr. Toth in 2004.

  • BallBounces September 8, 2014 at 8:51 pm

    It could have been worse. At least it wasn’t chiropractic data that had been manipulated.

  • Post a comment

    Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.