About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

About Adam Marcus

with 63 comments

20130815_130338Adam Marcus is the managing editor of Gastroenterology & Endoscopy News and Anesthesiology News. His freelance articles have appeared in Science, The Economist, The Christian Science Monitor, The Scientist, Birder’s World, Sciam.com, and many other publications and web sites.

Adam has an BA in history from the University of Michigan and an MA in science writing from Johns Hopkins. He can be reached at adam.marcus1 [at] gmail.com.

For more on what this blog is about, see its first post.

About these ads

Written by amarcus41

August 3, 2010 at 9:32 am

63 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/world/asia/07fraud.html?hp

    I was wondering why I hadn’t seen the 70(?!) retracted papers on retraction watch.

    Elliot.

    Elliot

    October 7, 2010 at 3:06 am

    • Hi Dr Adam Marcus and Dr Ivan Oransky,

      Hello! You have a wonderful blog here. It is great that WordPress and AutoMattic are supporting you in the unfortunate and vexing censorship issue, which, hopefully, will be amicably resolved and never happen again. It is really not easy to be a conscientious scientist and/or journalist nowadays, as gagging can come in many forms.

      I have just subscribed to your excellent blogs at retractionwatch.com, embargowatch.wordpress.com and pitchesthatmissed.blogspot.com.au/.

      By the way, I would like to inform you that the post at http://soundeagle.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/two-thirds-of-scientific-publications-retracted-are-fraudulent/ might be of some interest to you.

      SoundEagle

      November 26, 2013 at 8:28 pm

  2. Wasn’t sure where to post this.
    You may be interested in an ongoing investigation regarding fabrication of data by a graduate student happening at Columbia http://tinyurl.com/24jfm5g.
    what caught my attention was the following quote
    ‘The University is in the process of requesting the trustees to formally revoke Ms. Sezen’s Ph.D,” a Columbia spokesman said in a statement. Sames declined to speak to C&EN.’
    Thanks for you effort on this blog. I love it!

    Yev

    November 30, 2010 at 4:32 pm

  3. Seeing the high number of retractions these days would it be possible to have a weekly newsletter with highlights?
    Best,
    Elliot

    Elliot

    January 20, 2011 at 2:26 am

    • A great idea, Elliot — we’ll put our heads together and think about what it would look like.

      ivanoransky

      February 24, 2011 at 10:53 pm

  4. This case in Germany might lead to some interesting retreactions in the near future. With all the political consequences attached:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/world/europe/18briefs-germany.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Guttenberg&st=cse

    Elliot

    February 18, 2011 at 2:02 am

  5. Update on the German Defence Minister. He has now agreed to plagiarism and retracted his PhD thesis in the hope of retaining his Post.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,746913,00.html

    Elliot

    February 22, 2011 at 4:28 am

  6. The retractions highlighted on this site almost exclusively focus on researchers outside of the United States. Is there a particular reason for that phenomena?

    Mark Holcombe

    February 28, 2011 at 3:43 pm

  7. Any idea of adding a “tip us” button which leads to a place to add tips? Or is there already one (can’t find it).

    For example, there’s an interesting paper out on “fraud” versus “error” retractions:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21081306

    Marco

    March 27, 2011 at 7:28 am

  8. Because I love the Schadenfreude involved in retracted Cell papers, I thought I alert you to a notice that appears in the 1 April 2011 issue of the journal. (Retraction Notice to: DNA-PKcs-PIDDosome: A Nuclear Caspase-2-Activating Complex with Role in G2/M Checkpoint Maintenance).
    I’ll send you the link if you need it.

    Angel

    April 1, 2011 at 11:57 am

  9. Here is newly retracted paper in Cell:

    http://www.cell.com/fulltext/S0092-8674(11)00292-3

    Max

    April 1, 2011 at 9:19 pm

  10. Maybe you would like to find out the story behind these two retractions of papers from the lab of F Ashcroft in Oxford

    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Apr 28;106(17):7263. Epub 2009 Apr 20.
    Retraction for Ma et al. “Glucose regulates the effects of leptin on hypothalamic POMC neurons”.

    Retraction for Xiaosong Ma et al., “Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Stimulates Hypothalamic Proopiomelanocortin Neurons”
    At the request of the authors, the following manuscript has been retracted: “Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Stimulates Hypothalamic Proopiomelanocortin Neurons” by Xiaosong Ma, Jens Bruning, and Frances M. Ashcroft, which appeared on pages 7125–7129 of the July 4, 2007 issue (Journal of Neuroscience.

    Johnny

    June 9, 2011 at 4:08 am

  11. This is such a fascinating blog. I came across this only recently and it’s particularly timely as I am drafting my first manuscript ever. It just makes me double-triple-quadruple-check all my raw data and statistics, cross check all my blots and controls… because I don’t ever want to show up on a post on this website!

    SC

    June 13, 2011 at 12:52 pm

  12. Been a long term reader of your blog- you guys have been doing a great job. It was about time I contribute something and just thought I’d highlight these two retractions that have just come across my desk.

    1: [No authors listed] Related Articles
    Retraction. Fibronectin increases matrix metalloproteinase 9 expression through activation of c-Fos via extracellular-regulated kinase and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase pathways in human lung carcinoma cells.
    J Biol Chem. 2011 Jul 15;286(28):25416.
    PMID: 21882397 [PubMed - in process]

    2: [No authors listed] Related Articles
    Retraction. Activation of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor β/δ (PPARβ/δ) increases the expression of prostaglandin E₂ receptor subtype EP4. The roles of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase and CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein β.
    J Biol Chem. 2011 Jul 15;286(28):25416.
    PMID: 21882370 [PubMed - in process]

    Clone

    September 2, 2011 at 6:06 am

  13. I tried to search Hannes Strasser on your web site. I am not sure you have heard about this one. Check out this retracted article in Lancet on stem cells for stress incontinence. He is also currently being tried in criminal court for doing research on patient’s without their consent.

    Stephen Wood

    September 10, 2011 at 1:14 pm

  14. Why don’t scientific journals have a service like Westlaw and Lexis for attorneys? I can look up a case, and determine from the red, yellow and green flags whether a case is still “good law” on certain points made in the opinion. And it provides links to the cases that criticized, overturned, discussed etc. the first case. This would seem to be a big help to the situation where scientists continue to cite to and rely upon scientific papers that have been retracted or criticized.

    Sarah

    September 11, 2011 at 1:45 pm

  15. Did you all see this?
    Infect Immun. 2011 Oct;79(10):3855-9. Epub 2011 Aug 8.
    Retracted science and the retraction index.
    Fang FC, Casadevall A.
    Abstract

    Articles may be retracted when their findings are no longer considered trustworthy due to scientific misconduct or error, they plagiarize previously published work, or they are found to violate ethical guidelines. Using a novel measure that we call the “retraction index,” we found that the frequency of retraction varies among journals and shows a strong correlation with the journal impact factor. Although retractions are relatively rare, the retraction process is essential for correcting the literature and maintaining trust in the scientific process.

    PMID:
    21825063
    [PubMed - in process]

    ann viera

    October 13, 2011 at 9:40 am

    • We did, here’s our post from August: http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2011/08/11/is-it-time-for-a-retraction-index/ Always appreciate tips!

      ivanoransky

      October 13, 2011 at 1:15 pm

    • After almost 20 years at ORI, I want to say that many retractions, even for the most serious misconduct- ie data fabrication or falsification, fail to indicate who is responsible, thereby impugning the honesty of the innocent co-author, who have contributed their own valid data to a joint manuscript. They not only suffer a blow to their belief in the honesty of scientists, but it is unusual that the valid data can be published separately, thereby blocking the innocent (if inattentive) coauthors of credit for their valid findings. I believe it is up to the senior coauthor (or the most senior coauthor not involved in data falsiication, if the lab director/coauthor was directly responsible) to make it clear in the retraction wording who is and is not to be hel responsible. ORI tries to enforce this- but only has jurisdiction over data and publications involving USPHS funds or grant applications, and the retraction is often one of the last steps in a long process, taking place months or years after the false data is “out there”.

      kay

  16. Plagiarism in a “family” style: plagiaristic cooperation between Universities of Ferrara and Genova with the Italian Institute of Technology (IIT) and Northwestern University at http://issuu.com/r_sklyar/docs/sklyarvsmussaivaldi

    Rostyslav SKLYAR, Dr. (Eng)

    November 7, 2011 at 7:02 am

  17. I’m so impressed by you guys. Thank you for all the good honest work

    cheryl

    December 27, 2011 at 1:57 pm

  18. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/openLetterWormyCorn.php

    Thought this would be of general interest. Just a small curiosity.

    Rafa

    January 17, 2012 at 6:06 pm

  19. I received an invitation from the Journal of Chemical Science and Technology (http://www.sjcst.org/) to submit a manuscript. Everything was normal in the e-mail, but then they said:

    “To promote the development and communication of chemistry technology, we cordially invite you to extend this paper 60% at least different from the original one and publish it in our journal. The paper will be published with no charge”

    Would you consider this an invitation to plagiarism?

    I think these type of journals give a bad image to open-access.

    Carlos Alméciga

    February 20, 2012 at 5:04 pm

  20. Quick suggestion: in the vein of employers encouraging workplace safety by posting “this job has worked X many days without an accident” signs, it might help to encourage scientific oversight and accountability by tracking and publicizing “days without a retraction/correction/addendum etc.” data for labs or academic institutions.

    Alain Silk

    February 23, 2012 at 11:07 am

  21. I saw in your list of countries “Holland”.

    Could you please change this in “The Netherlands”, the official name of this country.
    Holland is the name of 2 provinces of The Netherlands, and using this name is an insult to the inhabitants of the other 10 provinces.

    Thank you.

    Leo van der Heijden

    March 9, 2012 at 9:22 am

    • Indeed! Sorry for that. I have a Dutch friend who said as much not long ago.
      I have added a category for The Netherlands; the trick will be recategorizing the old posts, but we’ll figure it out.

      Thanks for the comment!

      Adam

      amarcus41

      March 9, 2012 at 9:28 am

  22. A novel way to deal with plagiarism:

    http://deepclimate.org/2012/03/16/wiley-coverup-the-great-wegman-and-said-redo-to-remove-plagiarism-and-errors/

    but possibly only if the plagiarist is also the Editor-in-chief?

    Joe

    March 17, 2012 at 12:18 am

  23. I was wondering if you are keeping up with the arsenic life controversy? It seems as if a retraction in Science may be in the future: http://rrresearch.fieldofscience.com/ and http://www.nature.com/news/study-challenges-existence-of-arsenic-based-life-1.9861

    Anon

    June 5, 2012 at 7:44 am

  24. Hi Adam. Here’s one for you to consider: the “Australian Paradox” is an obvious candidate for retraction. Reliable nutrition information is critical in the fight against obesity and diabetes (“diabesity”). In Australia, the contribution of excess sugar consumption to obesity has been exonerated by high-profile but over-confident academics/scientists with very strong links to the sugar industry and other sugar sellers.

    No surprise I guess, but what’s interesting is that this deeply flawed paper with its recklessly false conclusion – “an inverse relationship” between sugar consumption and obesity, the Australian Paradox! – was published in a supposedly peer-reviewed science journal. Two respected scientists have agreed publicly that the authors’ conclusion belies the readily available facts.

    I’m arguing for the shoddy paper’s retraction by the authors, the journal Nutrients and/or the University of Sydney. It’s all documented at http://www.australianparadox.com/ and http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/research-causes-stir-over-sugars-role-in-obesity-20120330-1w3e5.html#ixzz20FXohd4R .

    Nothing has happened since March except that the authors have pretended their paper is fine. It isn’t. And it’s simply unreasonable to allow the false conclusion – “an inverse relationship” between sugar consumption and obesity, the Australian Paradox! – to sit uncorrected in a journal, misinforming scientists across the world via the Internet many months after the real facts have become clear.

    Because of the unreasonable delay in correcting the scientific record, one of the questions I’m now asking is when does an inadvertent series of major errors deliberately left uncorrected become an academic and scientific hoax? Any thoughts, anyone?

  25. I’ve got a cute one for you: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/3/1137.short?rss=1 . A correction on a paper about… retractions! Well, at least it wasn’t retracted.
    -AJW

    Anna

    January 15, 2013 at 5:09 pm

  26. Just happened upon Reaction Watch Rule 5.1 Q: is there a list of the rules, seems like a good and entertaining idea…

    William

    February 11, 2013 at 12:02 pm

  27. Adam and Marcus – I would like to email you directly, but can not locate your contact information anywhere on this website.

    JL

    February 26, 2013 at 12:50 am

  28. Help! Just published my first paper – short two-pager about an existing marine species newly discovered in my country. The proof readers at the journal have introduced five errors not of my doing. One is an entire incorrect sentence that they have inserted. I have now hit a wall of silence because it has gone to ‘print’ and they apparently don’t change things after that. I use inverted commas because it is an online journal so presumably it is entirely possible to make changes. At this rate I am going to be forced to retract…. Has anybody got any advice either on how to force the changes or about how to retract?

    Bryan

    February 27, 2013 at 8:36 am

  29. Any possibility to get the “recent comments” list back? And preferably with more than just three recent comments. Pretty please?

    Marco

    March 6, 2013 at 12:59 pm

    • Thanks for noticing that it had disappeared, which wasn’t anything we did. Technical glitch, I guess. We’ve replaced it, but with just three comments. More would push down the rest of what’s in the right-hand nav too much.

      ivanoransky

      March 7, 2013 at 5:32 pm

  30. Will y’all be saying anything about the events at Hopkins described in the Washington Post this morning (and quoting Adam)?

    Toby White

    March 12, 2013 at 11:35 am

  31. RG

    April 10, 2013 at 4:35 pm

  32. Hi Adam,

    Not a retraction as such, but interesting.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-22186220

    Keep up the good work,
    Bill

    Bill

    April 17, 2013 at 12:45 pm

  33. What happens in fields where publication in peer review journals is not the norm? I am thinking of the recent controversy in the field of economics pitting Reinhart-Rogoff vs Thomas Herndon, Michael Ash and Robert Pollin where Excel mistakes and very shoddy statistics has had real global implications. eg :http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21576362-seminal-analysis-relationship-between-debt-and-growth-comes-under How do retractions work when a journal is not involved?

    Etienne Low-Decarie

    April 18, 2013 at 12:56 pm

  34. Hot off the press from Nature:

    “Nature | News
    Symmetry study deemed a fraud

    University finds evidence of fakery in Jamaican dance data.”

    under

    News & Comment
    News
    2013
    May
    Article

    this was a 2005 cover of a dancing wireframe figure. One author began to suspect the other’s data… it doesn’t get any higher impact than this

    D G Rossiter

    May 6, 2013 at 9:04 am

  35. PPV

    June 26, 2013 at 9:55 am

    • InterEsting none the less.

      PPV

      June 26, 2013 at 9:56 am

  36. Here’s an interisting one

    http://twu-pathology.blogspot.ca

    11jigen@mail.goo.ne.jp

    August 18, 2013 at 1:26 am

    • That’s quite a list! Very interesting!
      Thank you 11jigen, you are a LEGEND!!

      michaelhbriggs

      August 18, 2013 at 6:38 am

    • Quite astonishing Jigen!

      Do you know of any retractions from the researchers in question?

      Stewart

      August 18, 2013 at 5:04 pm

  37. As experts in authorship matters, I was wondering if you could offer some guidance. I read that all authors have to approve submission of a paper. Unfortunately, a colleague of mine recently passed away. The manuscripts which he helped draft are being submitted with our colleague as author with a note of explanation to the editor and a footnote in the paper. These seem fairly simple. However, what about projects in which they were very much involved but where the manuscript drafting is done entirely after the time of death? Should their contribution be recognized in the acknowledgements rather than “author”?
    Many thanks.

    Question

    September 13, 2013 at 4:24 am

  38. Hello, Thank you for your important website! In economics we have a committee that investigates plagiarism. There was a drastic case of self-plagiarism by a prominent researcher and two coauthors who published very similar research in at least four different journals without proper cross-references, you briefly mentioned it here:

    http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/why-arent-there-more-retractions-in-business-and-economics-journals/#more-11085

    One of the journals made the corresponding author publicly apologize, http://aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jep.25.3.239
    his home faculty investigated

    https://docs.google.com/file/d/1GeaNAFcKZAEPJp69F_Dc3Res6VwP5vtKys_e3si2ZeMfWF3iAopIZ3wvoDSY/edit?pli=1

    and his contract was not renewed

    http://economiclogic.blogspot.de/2012/04/bruno-frey-story-that-keeps-giving.html?m=1

    – he quickly got a new one elsewhere though – and they were put on the RePEc list of plagiarism offenders:

    http://plagiarism.repec.org/offenders.html

    However, at the website

    http://freyplag.wikia.com

    clear and extensive evidence was compiled that the self-plagiarism occurred in many other cases and with many other coauthors, over many years and in many journals. This was reported to the editors of some of the journals, the press, and the RePEc plagiarism committee.

    http://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/copy-of-letter-to-repec-plagiarism-committee-and-editors-of-aer-and-jpe

    As far as I know, only the latter replied, as follows:

    http://blog.repec.org/2011/02/16/plagiarism-in-economics

    “It was felt by many on the committee that it should not become a conduit for anonymos accusations. We guarantee the anonymity of the submitter, if requested, but we want a real person to bring the case to the table. We hope this small cost will prevent the committee from being overburdened by cases that are not worth pursuing.
    This says nothing about the merits of the case that is described. My understanding is that the relevant journals have been contacted, and the committee would take on the case if the journals are not reaching a conclusion, and somebody submits the case. We are not activiely seeking work.” Although about every economist knows about the case that ess widely reported in the press and blogs and there is a lot of outrage and quite some commenting in anonymous blogs about some of the coauthors, apparently everyone is afraid of making the case under her our his name, which in my eyes reflects very badly on our field. I hope letting your readership know about this can help us to find a solution.

    brauchichnich

    September 15, 2013 at 9:55 pm

  39. Kieranb

    September 30, 2013 at 12:00 am

  40. Kudos to Adam and Ivan for Retraction Watch, which I’ve highlighted in my Dec 16th 2013 posting on the glut of scientific literature and dark side of open-access journals.

    http://zon.trilinkbiotech.com/2013/12/16/scientific-publications/

    Jerry Zon

    December 17, 2013 at 1:19 pm

  41. someone

    May 16, 2014 at 1:06 pm


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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 34,278 other followers

%d bloggers like this: