The week at Retraction Watch featured a researcher whose ideas were stolen at least three times, a victory for Crossfit in its attempt to reveal peer reviewers, and the second delisting of a cancer journal by an index that praised it just months ago. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Title: Assessment of coronary heart diseases in diabetics in al-Madinah al-Munawarah What Caught Our Notice: We’ve seen researchers dinged for adding authors to papers who didn’t participate in the research, but it’s rare to have a notice say co-author signatures were forged. In a recent retraction, the first two authors said the signatures on the the … Continue reading Caught Our Notice: Wait…we wrote WHAT paper?
Following an investigation, a genetics journal has pulled six cancer papers published this year for plagiarizing from other sources. According to an excerpt from the retraction notice in Genetics and Molecular Research, the journal has “strong reason to believe that the peer review process was [a] failure,” and has alerted the authors’ institutions. The notice … Continue reading Journal cleans the house by retracting 6 cancer papers for plagiarism
We’ve been writing about retractions for six years, and things tend to fall into easily recognizable categories — plagiarism, fabricated data, rigged peer review, etc. So it’s always interesting to come across a notice sui generis, such as one that appeared in July in OncoTargets and Therapy, a Dove title, about a new way to detect … Continue reading Beg pardon? Researchers pull cancer paper because, well, um, you see …
We’ve seen many cases of researchers creating fake email addresses to impersonate reviewers that usher their paper to publication. But in the latest fake email incident, a journal is retracting a paper on liver cancer after the first author created a phony address for the last and corresponding author. Both are researchers at Zhengzhou University in China. This … Continue reading Fake email address — for author, not reviewer — fells another paper
With something like 500-600 retractions per year, and a constant flurry of publishing news to keep up with, our small staff stays busy – and can’t always immediately post on every new retraction that we discover. We’ve created this page to show you some of what’s on our current to-do list. If you have any … Continue reading Help us: Here’s some of what we’re working on
A 2013 review article about tuberculosis is being retracted for “unacknowledged re-use of significant portions of text” from another article, which the first author said wasn’t intentional. Sayantan Ray, based at Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata in India, told us that “most of the unchanged text” is present in sections written by junior co-authors. Since there doesn’t … Continue reading Plagiarism was “not an intentional act,” says first author of retracted TB paper
Two 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 … Continue reading Authors retract green coffee bean diet paper touted by Dr. Oz
The title of this post isn’t exactly how the one-sided conversation between the editors of Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment and a group of researchers went. But it seems likely it was pretty close. Here’s an expression of concern for “A cross-sectional study on perception of stigma by Chinese schizophrenia patients:”
A group of researchers in China has lost their paper on liver cancer after the first author admitted to duplication, also known, inelegantly, as self-plagiarism. The paper, “Glycyrrhetinic acid-modified chitosan nanoparticles enhanced the effect of 5-fluorouracil in murine liver cancer model via regulatory T-cells,” appeared in the July 2013 issue of the Journal of Drug … Continue reading “Lack of experience and understanding” forces duplication retractions of liver cancer paper