About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Archive for the ‘china retractions’ Category

Authors retract two spectroscopy papers when follow-up results don’t match

with one comment

analytical methodsThe authors of two spectroscopy papers in Royal Society of Chemistry journals have retracted them.

Here’s the notice for “Determination of silk fibroin secondary structure by terahertz time domain spectroscopy” (free, but requires sign-in) in Analytical Methods, which is almost identical to this notice in Analyst: Read the rest of this entry »

About these ads

Written by Cat Ferguson

October 28, 2014 at 11:30 am

Failure to disclose drug company sponsor among litany of reasons for cancer retraction

leave a comment »

tumor biologyThis one’s a real mess.

In June, a paper in Tumor Biology was retracted for at least four reasons, including bad data and hiding a trial sponsor (Merck). Some people who contributed work weren’t cited; at least one author had no idea his name would be on it. And that’s just what they tell us in the notice.

Here’s the notice for “Neutropenia and invasive fungal infection in patients with hematological malignancies treated with chemotherapy: a multicenter, prospective, non-interventional study in China:” Read the rest of this entry »

Cell line switch sinks PLoS ONE cancer paper

with 4 comments

plosWe’ve written before about how common cell line mix ups are in cancer research; according to a 2012 Wall Street Journal article (paywalled), between a fifth and a third of cancer cell lines tested by suspicious researchers turned out to be misidentified.

Obviously, mistakenly studying the wrong kind of cancer is a waste of precious resources, both time and money. And it’s clear the problem hasn’t gone away. PLoS ONE just retracted a cancer paper originally published in December 2012 for studying two cell lines that had been contaminated by other cell types.

Here’s the notice for “Epithelial Mesenchymal Transition Is Required for Acquisition of Anoikis Resistance and Metastatic Potential in Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma”:
Read the rest of this entry »

Is it better to retract a paper, or publish a letter calling the conclusions “unphysical?”

with 24 comments

langd5_v030i025.inddSometimes publishers and authors decide it’s easier to retract a paper than leave it up for discussion by other scientists.

That seems to be the case here: The authors of a paper in Langmuir retracted it in September for a math mistake, but not before the journal refused to publish a comment criticizing the publication.

Here’s the notice for “Drainage of a thin liquid film between hydrophobic spheres: Boundary curvature effects:” Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Cat Ferguson

October 8, 2014 at 12:30 pm

It’s happened again: Researcher appears to have peer reviewed his own paper

with 2 comments

bmc sys bioAlthough it shocks some observers every time, we’ve reported on the retractions of more than 100 papers pulled because authors managed to do their own peer review.

Apparently, it’s happened again.

Here’s a retraction notice in BMC Systems Biology for “Predicting new molecular targets for rhein using network pharmacology,” by  Aihua Zhang, Hui Sun, Bo Yang and Xijun Wang:

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ivan Oransky

September 29, 2014 at 11:31 am

Notice fails to get to the heart of cardiology retraction

with 5 comments

cmjThis one is a little odd.

A cardiology paper from China has been retracted because “permission to report these discussions was not sought nor obtained,” though it’s unclear what “the discussions” refers to. The person to whom the discussions are attributed to in the retraction, Ji Bingyang, is not an author on the paper, and none of his papers are cited in the retracted article.

Here’s the notice in the Chinese Medical Journal for “A novel rat model of cardiopulmonary bypass for deep hypothermic circulatory arrest without blood priming”:
Read the rest of this entry »

Retraction, tell-all style, for breast cancer radiology paper

with 5 comments

acta radHere at Retraction Watch, we don’t believe in the expression “TMI.” But this case features a level of detail we’re not sure we’ve seen before.

Acta Radiologica has pulled a 2012 article on breast cancer imaging for being a duplicate publication — a sin the retraction notice takes great pains to point out.

The notice, written by journal editor Arnulf Skjennald, has the blow-by-blow feel of a police report: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Adam Marcus

September 24, 2014 at 9:30 am

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 35,982 other followers