Archive for the ‘belgium’ Category
Martin W. F. Stone was a philosophy professor at the University of Leuven — by one account “widely admired and highly respected” — until 2010, when an investigation at the school concluded that his work is “highly questionable in terms of scientific integrity.” Over the past several years, he has racked up retractions, earning his 14th this spring, and spot #30 on our leaderboard.
Stone’s retractions were brought to our attention by philosopher Michael Dougherty, who found a notice for “Michael Baius (1513–89) and the Debate on ‘Pure Nature’: Grace and Moral Agency in Sixteenth-Century Scholasticism,” a chapter in Springer’s Moral Philosophy on the Threshold of Modernity.
The last author is baffled as to why the journal couldn’t have made that call before they published the abstract.
To get to that, though, we had to make it through what turns out to be an unnecessarily vague retraction notice (more on that in a moment) in the Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology & Nutrition:
Read the rest of this entry »
Radical geography journal Antipode has retracted a paper on sexuality and geography after discovering that author Martin Zebracki published an almost identical article in a Dutch magazine on which he served as a member of the editorial board.
“I am deeply saddened and disturbed:” Co-author of retracted Nature paper reveals how problems came to light
On Wednesday, we reported on a Nature retraction of a paper whose corresponding author had also had a Cell paper retracted, and had been found to have committed a “violation of academic integrity” by Utrecht University. Today, we present the back story of how those retractions came to be, from another co-author of both papers, Ben Scheres, of Wageningen University: Read the rest of this entry »
A 2013 paper in Nature that was among those whose first or last author had committed a “violation of academic integrity,” according to Utrecht University, has been retracted.
We have a second retraction from a group of neuroscience researchers in Belgium who discovered fatal errors in their work on how the brain sets about the task of reading written language. Spoiler alert: Turns out those errors weren’t errors after all.
As we reported back in May, the group, from the University of Leuven, was unable to replicate certain fMRI findings in a November 2012 article in Neuroscience. At the time, Hans P. Op de Beeck, who led the group, told us: Read the rest of this entry »
The article, “Nitrogen utilization and bone mineralization in very low birth weight infants fed partially hydrolyzed preterm formula,” by Jean-Charles Picaud and colleagues, appeared in December 2002. But it was based largely on this May 2001 paper in the Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, titled “Nutritional Efficacy of Preterm Formula With a Partially Hydrolyzed Protein Source: A Randomized Pilot Study.”
According to the retraction notice:
Doing the right thing: Psychology researchers retract after realizing data “were not analyzed properly”
Amid an ongoing investigation, a group of psychology researchers at the University of Leuven (KU Leuven) in Belgium have taken a painful decision to retract a paper now that they’ve realized there were serious problems with one aspect of the work.
Here’s the notice for “The Emergence of Orthographic Word Representations in the Brain: Evaluating a Neural Shape-Based Framework Using fMRI and the HMAX Model,” by Wouter Braet, Jonas Kubilius, Johan Wagemans, and Hans P. Op de Beeck: Read the rest of this entry »
The survey, by the Dutch science magazine Eos with the help of Joeri Tijdink, of VU University Medical Center in Amsterdam, and the Pascal Decroos Fund for Investigative Journalism, found that Read the rest of this entry »