About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

About Ivan Oransky

with 62 comments

Ivan-OranskyThanks for visiting Retraction Watch. I’m Ivan Oransky, the vice president and global editorial director of MedPage Today. I teach medical journalism at New York University’s Science, Health, and Environmental Reporting Program, and I’m the vice president of the Association of Health Care Journalists. The views here do not necessarily represent those of any of those organizations.

In the past, I’ve been executive editor of Reuters Health, managing editor, online, of Scientific American, deputy editor of The Scientist, and editor-in-chief of the now-defunct Praxis Post. For three years, I taught in the health and medicine track at the City University of New York’s Graduate School of Journalism.

I earned my bachelor’s at Harvard, where I was executive editor of The Harvard Crimson, and my MD at the New York University of School of Medicine, where I hold an appointment as clinical assistant professor of medicine.

For more on what this blog is about, see its first post and this interview transcript. Please also visit my other blog, Embargo Watch. Follow me on Twitter — @ivanoransky — or email me at ivan-oransky at erols.com.

About these ads

Written by Ivan Oransky

August 3, 2010 at 8:31 am

62 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I am very interested in the information you have about various types of fraud. I am getting involved in the reproducible research issue, which means several things: 1) data well defined 2) methods expressed in a way to be redone 3) papers with a clear path from data to results. One issue that I am interested in is the degree to which “fraud” is actually “sloppy and careless work”. Potti for instance – is he a fraudster, or just a person who needed to hire a competent database person?

    Are you keeping records of frauds, classified in various ways? If not, perhaps you should establish a “fraud database”, in which you classify frauds in terms of a) number of distinct actions b) number of persons involved c) papers which result d) citations of papers e) actions from frauds f) how fraud was discovered and so forth.

    Paul Thompson

    January 31, 2011 at 2:04 pm

  2. ever seen this one??
    really upsets me
    they retracted a figure!!!
    from pretty high profile lab so …go figure



    February 4, 2011 at 5:47 pm

  3. TERRIFIC blog. Wondering how I had not come across this earlier! :)

    Dr. Skeptic

    February 23, 2011 at 11:45 pm

  4. Very nice blog, congratulations!


    March 1, 2011 at 5:53 pm

  5. Great blog. Just curious. Are you interested in every retraction or only interesting/unique/high profile ones? Because I see many retractions in the literature that go unreported here. Is there a place these can be reported or documented, at least for statistical purposes.

    Also, do you think the increased number of retractions is leading to an almost blasé attitude towards the topic now? At least for me, if I see a retraction, it isn’t quite “shock horror” as it once was.


    March 9, 2011 at 5:07 pm

    • Thanks! We’re interested in all retractions. We keep a list, and get to as many as we can. We’d be happy to hear about any you come across. My email is in my bio above.

      I can’t say whether people have a blase attitude at this point, but it’s certainly possible. We don’t!


      March 9, 2011 at 5:43 pm

  6. I enjoyed hearing your interview on NPR.

    By the way, I was a “whistleblower” several years ago. I contacted PNAS about suspicious results in a scientific article that was published in a then current issue, and I hate to say that I’m not sure I’d do it again. The editor(s) read my complaint and the authors’ rebuttal and decided they could find no problem. I felt bad and embarrassed. Oddly enough, four years later, PNAS printed a retraction of that very article (with practically no explanation) except that they acknowledged that a problem had been identified by a “reader”.

    C Kloess

    September 4, 2011 at 5:54 pm

  7. The most enjoyable thing when reading your blog is that I saw that tiny bits of justice.


    September 24, 2011 at 7:03 pm

  8. Prevention is best–have you compiled a list of best practices for scholarly authors, especially those research and writing practices that could be generalized across the sciences? Have favorites among others’ books or blogs on scholarly writing that would be helpful to post-docs writing their first few articles?

    Your blog with a cup of coffee are my necessary eyeopeners mid-morning daily–thanks!

    Ruth Greenwood

    September 30, 2011 at 10:19 am

  9. Perhaps you next public presentation could be recorded, it could be great for teaching graduate students!

    Mike Klymkowsky

    November 28, 2011 at 12:00 pm

  10. Although I applaud vigilance about research misconduct – I think we all need to be accurate about definitions – what are we seeking of and what is the goal.

    About 2 years ago I submitted a manuscript in which we described results of an experiment using a technique previously published/used by our group. As part of our description of the method we published a figure which gave an example of the graphic output resulting from our method which was designed to explain how we make our measurement endpoint. This ‘picture/figure’ was not a datapoint but was methodological in nature. In the figure legend we referenced the original article in which the figure was published.

    This, unfortunately was considered ‘duplication’ and the response of the editorial office was this might be construed as fraud. If one uses a method not obvious to all and describes it in a new manuscript – is this fraudulent duplication? I hope not. If we cannot be clear about the definition of this problem – we create a new one.

    John Parker

    November 29, 2011 at 10:03 am

    • Dear John,

      That what happened to you is quite sad. I don’t think that it should never be about being
      “holier-than-Thou”,or degenerate into something akin to a modern day “Crucible”.
      It should be about putting the record straight.
      I can only speak from personal experience, but after a recent high-profile case in Germany many people at the same institute we accused of scientific misconduct, as if everybody commits misconduct, and in the belief that the slightest infraction, or perceived infraction, equalled a number of retractions which you need more than your fingers and thumbs to count. Friends did keep their primary data and records, which of course they could show, but there is a lot of collateral damage though. It is an odd feeling, to worry about things you did quite right. It has calmed down now.

      Bernard Soares

      November 29, 2011 at 5:25 pm

  11. Parker,

    I see your concern, and think it is justified, however it is for the best that science becomes strict about such things. If you made clear to the editors the image came from other sources they cannot say you tried to deceive them (the principle of fraud). But they can say you can be misinterpreted by readers for attempted fraud. And that is apparently what they said. In that point I agree with the journal, they were emphatic in saying that the repetition might be seen as fraud by readers, which can harm both your image and the journal’s. Better be safe. I agree with the journal concerns, and you ought not to take that so hard.

    P. S.

    November 29, 2011 at 5:42 pm

    • For this to be considered fraud by a reader, you’d have to be specifically looking for something to construct as fraudulous. The one potential problem is that the figure was used previously in another journal and may thus be under copyright.


      November 30, 2011 at 2:22 am

  12. Hi Ivan,

    What a great blog! Safeguarding the integrity of the scientific process is thankless but essential work. Just attended former colleague’s, Steve Shafer’s, talk to the New York State Society of Anesthesiology’s Post Graduate Assembly regarding how, over the course of 1400 emails, he dealt with Boldt’s fraud leading to prosecution and retraction you document here. Fascinating stuff. Dr. Shafer is a mountain of intelligence, insight, integrity and good humor. So fun to see this important work documented by you and Adam Marcus.


    Ben Unger

    December 10, 2011 at 1:04 pm

  13. Thank you very much, journals have noted and many have changed their policies



    December 29, 2011 at 1:10 pm

  14. Ivan, thank you for the invaluable work you do. BTW, we are both NYU alums (mine is an MA and Ph.D.). You do all of us proud by your efforts to route out this type of pseudo-scholarship.

    Patricia Farrell

    January 12, 2012 at 1:06 pm

  15. As a frequent reader of your blog I only have a suggestion: it would be nice to see which are the posts that are more commented. It would be nice to order the posts for number of comments as those more commented would likely be the more interesting and more impactful. thanks again for your work, very nice blog!


    May 23, 2012 at 3:36 pm

  16. Interesting blog which I just now discovered, and added my email to your subscription list. Thank you!

    Here’s one to monitor…..Not yet a retraction but this major climate science paper (already fast-tracked into the first draft of the next IPCC report AR5) has suddenly been put “on hold” just 3 weeks after initial online publication with the Journal of Climate:

    notice circulated by the co-authors yesterday June 8, 2012:


    Print publication of scientific study put on hold

    An issue has been identified in the processing of the data used in the study, “Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium” by Joelle Gergis, Raphael Neukom, Stephen Phipps, Ailie Gallant and David Karoly, accepted for publication in the Journal of Climate.

    We are currently reviewing the data and results.








    June 9, 2012 at 10:15 am

  17. Erratum notice; at the end editors say that the corrections does not affect the conclusion of the study, but looks it do affect the conclusion, more scoop to follow;



    July 25, 2012 at 4:56 pm

  18. u guys are doing a great job.. just wonder if you have experienced any personal ‘threats’.. following some of these ‘exposes’?


    August 18, 2012 at 3:41 am

    • Thanks, Zbys. Other than a cease-and-desist letter from a scientific society that didn’t want us to use their logo, we have not had any threats, personal or otherwise. Certainly there are some who disagree with us, sometimes strongly, but that kind of feedback is welcome.


      August 23, 2012 at 10:22 am

  19. The Wall Street Journal printed an article on August 25 about gaming the citation indices. Two journals have been accused of requiring authors to cite more articles in the journal before they would be published. You can reach the beginning of the article, but must subscribe to read all of it.


    August 26, 2012 at 1:07 pm

  20. Is it not more appropriate to refer to this as the gaming of IF of journals? or inflating of citation indices by self citation?..BTW although its not the only ‘game’ in town I guess those who should know do know the nature of the game and indeed who the ‘high rollers’ are


    August 27, 2012 at 12:26 am

  21. A possible or likely retraction to watch for: what appears to be deeply flawed and reckless psychology paper now being dissected and shredded by bloggers:



    September 2, 2012 at 4:56 pm

  22. on the topic of dubious psychology papers, Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit has just shredded the Lewandowsky paper and the countdown is on for how long before withdrawal or retraction (publication is listed as “in press”):

    Anatomy of the Lewandowsky Scam


    September 8, 2012 at 7:50 pm

    • Controversy ongoing, Lewandowsky has dug in and so far admits no problems, but the very inflammatory title of the paper is unjustified even on his own account of the data, and there seem to be serious problems with the data and analysis. My hyperlink above was broken when Climate Audit re-published the article with a corrected date in the link, but that article and other relevant items can be found here with the “Lewandowsky” keyword:


      (lots of relevant info also at WattsUpWithThat, BishopHill, and JoNova, and Lewandowsky has been publishing tendentious screeds in response (8 so far) at his blog ShapingTomorrowsWorld)

      No one can say yet how this will end up, but this Lewandowsky et al (2012) is more flawed and the data/analysis more incomplete and distorted than should be considered acceptable for any scientific paper.


      September 15, 2012 at 1:16 am

  23. wow… Lewandowsky et al (2012) has NOT appeared to date in the journal Psychological Science, even though it was circulated to media in late July as “in press” and published reports were that it was to appear in this Sept. 2012 issue:


    Is there any public info about the status? Can anyone get an honest answer about what is going on with this dubious and now much debunked paper? It’s already has its “release by press release” six weeks ago but the published paper seems to be in some kind of unannounced journal limbo??

    Climate Audit: Trying Unsuccessfully to Replicate Lewandowsky


    Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K., & Gignac, C. E. (in press). NASA faked the moon landing—therefore (climate) science is a hoax: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science.. Psychological Science.



    September 17, 2012 at 4:27 pm

  24. Ivan,
    I have been reading science-fraud.org, and I am concerned that its allegations are generally ignored – in fact googling keywords from its stories gives hits from science-fraud and nowhere else. I understand that RW has a very specific focus, but is there any way that allegations that have not resulted in retractions can be publicised more effectively?

    Michael Kovari

    September 22, 2012 at 6:02 am

    • ..and you better be quick on this: as you can see Science-Fraud is already being constantly threatened and the good old Abnormal Science Blog has completely vanished from online existence! Maybe one day RW will meet the same fate?


      November 29, 2012 at 8:04 am

  25. Hi Ivan,

    I have been following this blog for some time now and think it’s great! This is not quite a retraction story (yet), but in case you haven’t seen it, it’s fairly ridiculous and thought you would be interested:


    with some details updated: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/10/stem-cell-claims-by-japanese-res.html?ref=hp


    October 16, 2012 at 1:48 pm

    • Well spotted! It makes science fun again!

      Other things that never really happended may come out soon.

      Fernando Pessoa

      October 16, 2012 at 4:52 pm

  26. This retraction was until now missed by this site: http://www.scientific.net/AMR.291-294.2750

    mark van loosdrecht

    November 10, 2012 at 4:05 am

  27. I just found this rather opaque retraction notice in the most recent version of the Journal of Neuroscience. Essentially zero information.

    “At the request of the authors, the following manuscript has been retracted: “Spinal 5-HT3 Receptor Activation Induces Behavioral Hypersensitivity via a Neuronal-Glial-Neuronal Signaling Cascade” by Ming Gu, Kan Miyoshi, Ronald Dubner, Wei Guo, Shiping Zou, Ke Ren, Koichi Noguchi, and Feng Wei, which appeared on pages 12823–12836 of the September 7, 2011 issue”


    December 12, 2012 at 3:32 pm

  28. Another retracted article by an Indiana University professor:



    February 15, 2013 at 5:22 pm

  29. This is looking like one for your collection:



    March 16, 2013 at 6:25 pm

  30. Just have some concerns regarding the Sampaolesi, Cossu, Nature 2006. Using Photoshop, you will notice that the MyHC bands in Figure 4 (Varus and Vampire samples) are identical. They overlay perfectly, although the authors cut off one band on each side (smart). I can send you the Photoshop files but it is obvious!


    April 28, 2013 at 1:26 am

  31. it might be interesting for you:
    deserve to be retracted or just an error?

    first version: with identical pictures
    Figure 5:(B&E, B is a magnified version of B)also(C&D) :


    after investigation!!!
    second version!!:



    April 30, 2013 at 3:07 pm

  32. I am curious if you have looked at the ACS journal Environmental Science & Technology (ES&T)? I am researching the incidence of retraction in environmental science journals. Since I am a member of ACS, I contacted an editor at ES&T about retractions and he told me they almost never happen. I know I have not seen a retraction in the years I have been involved with ACS.

    I find this a bit suspicious considering the volume of article that are published by the journal. Not to mention questionable practices such as “pick your reviewer”.

    I get the feeling that this site is more tailored to the medical sciences but I thought I would just mention my findings so far.

    Mark Morris

    September 10, 2013 at 11:19 am

  33. Hi,

    Please, I beg you to compare the table in the manuscript “Prepubertal gynecomastia in two monozygotic twins with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome: Clinical and surgical management” by Grella E (JPRAS, Aug 2013) with the table in the manuscript “Prepubertal gynecomastia in two monozygotic twins with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome: two years’ treatment with anastrozole and genetic study” by Grandone A (Horm Res Pediatr 2011).
    Please compare the figures in the manuscript “Prepubertal gynecomastia in two monozygotic twins with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome: Clinical and surgical management” by Grella E (JPRAS 2013) with the figures in the manuscript “Management of Prepubertal Gynecomastia in Two Monozygotic Twins With Peutz-Jeghers Syndrome: From Aromatase Inhibitors To Subcutaneous Mastectomy” by Ferraro G (Aesth Plast Surg, July 2013).

    Steven Walterd

    September 10, 2013 at 12:28 pm

    • better post to Pubpeer


      October 7, 2013 at 8:42 am

  34. You may be interested in: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030401813008602 [Retraction notice to “Quantum key distribution without sharing reference frame using single photon rotational-invariant subspace” [Opt. Commun. 308C (2013) 256–259]]


    November 3, 2013 at 4:35 pm

  35. Could you please give us a simple and direct way to reach you to make suggestions on new cases etc?


    November 20, 2013 at 10:55 pm

    • “email me at ivan-oransky at erols.com”


      November 21, 2013 at 8:41 am

  36. Hi there, I love this blog even though it highlights the lengths some researchers go to publish-or-die even at the expense of valid research/morals/ethics etc.

    I have been searching on your blog, but I cannot find anything about ghost-writing. I am a postdoc and looking to supplement my income with medical writing (our lab recently didn’t get it’s funding renewed, so now on part-time to minimise costs). The most recent jobs I have been offered are two brief reports and one full article. A quick internet search of the person who contacted me shows they are in science and are genuinely wanting papers written (a number are already in print from a variety of peer reviewed journals). But my question is this. Is it ethical to ghost-write a paper? I should note that not only have I been asked to write it, but also to analyse the data and write something that mirrors a paper from 2007. The person in question has openly stated they don’t have all the data/conclusions yet, but they “like” a particular hypothesis.

    My personal feeling is this is unethical and dishonest – authorship disputes on papers can turn nasty in even the most civilised of labs. It appears this is not the first time such proposals have been made, which begs the question, are any of the papers already in print ghost-written? I have declined the work as I do not agree with it, but I wondered what other researchers thoughts were on this? Is this a hidden problem and potential can of worms/grounds for retraction?


    January 15, 2014 at 8:21 am

    • It certainly is a muddy area where nobody wants to explore. It is not shocking news to tell you that there are many incompetent professors who can not give a 15 minutes talk about their area of expertise notwithstanding the hundreds of papers published in their names. These have either plagiarized or used the services of ghost writers or (fill in the blank). And although suspicion is seen in the eyes of their colleagues , nobody speaks out.

      Thank you for declining to serve such phony academics, and I hope that your post will inspire others to follow suit.


      January 15, 2014 at 9:56 am

      • But surely it shouldn’t be a muddy area? There is an article published in PLoS Medicine on the use of ghost writers, and whilst it acknowledges this is a “grey area”, it calls for academic writers/ghost writers to be the ones to police it I.e. Push clients to acknowledge the role of the writer. That, in my view, is not enough. There needs to be an active, open discussion on this topic.

        It is not restricted to articles, I have also been contacted regarding writing doctoral theses. Again, I have declined the offers. I should not be surprised, but if the dishonesty starts at this stage of the career, where will it end?


        January 15, 2014 at 11:44 am

    • The short answer to your question is, “No, it is not ethical to ghost-write a paper”. The long answer is also “no”.

      Ghost writing (for example, writing the first draft for the authors, substantially revising the manuscript with varying degrees of participation by the named authors, but not being named anywhere in the article as the person responsible for this) is considered unacceptable. To make these contributions to a manuscript legitimate and transparent, the person who undertakes them should be named in the Acknowledgments section or list of authors and other contributors, and the role of the non-author contributor should be specified.

      Try searching the net with the terms [research article ghost writing ghost author medical writer]. This should locate professional practice guidelines on ethical authorship issued by editorial organizations such as the Council of Science Editors (CSE), World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Professional associations for medical writers (AMWA, American Medical Writers Association and EMWA, European Medical Writers Association) have also developed guidelines that advise members to avoid ghost authorship.

      A PubMed search with [author ghost ethics] will locate articles in the biomed literature on the topic.

      The Instructions to authors or Guidelines for manuscript preparation for most reputable research journals will contain information about the journal’s or publisher’s policies on who is allowed (or required) to be named as an author. In many if not most journals, ghost-writing is explicitly forbidden. If your involvement in writing the manuscript meets the journal’s definition of authorship, you should be named in the list of authors together with the other authors. These policies are spelled out precisely to prevent authorship disputes — which, as you note, can turn nasty and be very difficult to resolve to everyone’s satisfaction.

      Karen Shashok

      January 15, 2014 at 11:44 am

  37. Japan Today reporting that Obokata has agreed to retract both nature papers. Finally!


    Daron Standley

    June 4, 2014 at 11:35 am

  38. A “commentary” is published where a retraction is clearly warranted: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/05/27/0956797614533802.full


    June 10, 2014 at 11:46 am

  39. Is there a preferred method of submitting questionable published articles?


    July 2, 2014 at 5:57 pm

  40. Thought this press release, issued today by the FTC, might interest you.

    Mitch Katz, FTC OPA

    Green Coffee Bean Manufacturer Settles FTC Charges of Pushing its Product Based on Results of “Seriously Flawed” Weight-Loss Study

    Applied Food Sciences, Inc. Will Pay $3.5 Million and Must Substantiate Future Claims

    For Release
    September 8, 2014

    Bureau of Consumer Protection
    Consumer Protection
    Advertising and Marketing
    Health Claims

    A Texas-based company, Applied Food Sciences, Inc. (AFS), has settled Federal Trade Commission charges that it used the results of a flawed study to make baseless weight-loss claims about its green coffee extract to retailers, who repeated those claims in marketing finished products to consumers.

    The FTC complaint alleges the study was so hopelessly flawed that no reliable conclusions could be drawn from it. The flawed study, which purported to show that the product causes “substantial weight and fat loss,” was later touted on The Dr. Oz Show.

    The FTC’s settlement with Applied Food Sciences, Inc. (AFS), which sells a green coffee ingredient used in dietary supplements and foods, requires the company to pay $3.5 million, and to have scientific substantiation for any future weight-loss claims it makes, including at least two adequate and well-controlled human clinical tests.

    “Applied Food Sciences knew or should have known that this botched study didn’t prove anything,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “In publicizing the results, it helped fuel the green coffee phenomenon.”

    According to the FTC’s complaint, in 2010, Austin, Texas-based AFS paid researchers in India to conduct a clinical trial on overweight adults to test whether Green Coffee Antioxidant (GCA), a dietary supplement containing green coffee extract, reduced body weight and body fat.

    The FTC charges that the study’s lead investigator repeatedly altered the weights and other key measurements of the subjects, changed the length of the trial, and misstated which subjects were taking the placebo or GCA during the trial. When the lead investigator was unable to get the study published, the FTC says that AFS hired researchers Joe Vinson and Bryan Burnham at the University of Scranton to rewrite it. Despite receiving conflicting data, Vinson, Burnham, and AFS never verified the authenticity of the information used in the study, according to the complaint.

    Despite the study’s flaws, AFS used it to falsely claim that GCA caused consumers to lose 17.7 pounds, 10.5 percent of body weight, and 16 percent of body fat with or without diet and exercise, in 22 weeks, the complaint alleges.

    Although AFS played no part in featuring its study on The Dr. Oz Show, it took advantage of the publicity afterwards by issuing a press release highlighting the show. The release claimed that study subjects lost weight “without diet or exercise,” even though subjects in the study were instructed to restrict their diet and increase their exercise, the FTC contends.

    The proposed order settling the FTC’s charges bars AFS from misrepresenting any aspect of a test or study related to the products it sells, and prohibits the company from providing anyone else with the means of falsely advertising, labeling, promoting, or using purported substantiation material in marketing their own products.

    The order further requires AFS to notify trade customers of the FTC’s conclusion that the company lacked reasonable scientific support for the weight-loss and fat-loss claims it made. Finally, the proposed order requires AFS to pay $3.5 million.

    Information for Consumers

    The FTC advises consumers to carefully evaluate advertising claims for weight-loss products. For more information, see the FTC’s guidance for consumers of products and services advertised for Weight Loss & Fitness.

    The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint and proposed stipulated final order was 5-0. The complaint and order were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division. The proposed order is subject to court approval.

    The FTC is a member of the National Prevention Council, which provides coordination and leadership at the federal level regarding prevention, wellness, and health promotion practices. The National Prevention Strategy, released June 16, 2011, aims to guide our nation in the most effective and achievable means for improving health and well-being. This case advances the National Prevention Strategy’s goal of increasing the number of Americans who are healthy at every stage of life.

    NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. Stipulated orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.

    The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics. Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.

    Contact Information

    Mitchell J. Katz
    Office of Public Affairs

    Elizabeth Tucci
    Bureau of Consumer Protection

    Mitchell J. Katz

    September 8, 2014 at 11:48 am

  41. There is another retraction from last year:



    September 18, 2014 at 1:06 pm

  42. I sometimes wonder why the ‘Lack of conflict of interest’ paragraph which now lies at the end of most biomedical articles always seem to be empty….


    October 15, 2014 at 3:19 pm

  43. NAD(P)H:quinone oxidoreductase 1 protects bladder epithelium against painful bladder syndrome in mice.
    Patrick BA1, Das A, Jaiswal AK.
    Author information
    1Department of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA.
    Erratum in
    Free Radic Biol Med. 2013 Jul;60:5-6.

    jha jauya@hotmail.com

    October 21, 2014 at 11:33 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 35,805 other followers

%d bloggers like this: