About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Archive for the ‘china retractions’ Category

Expression of Concern reveals journal editors bending over backward to give authors benefit of the doubt

with 11 comments

ceiSometimes, an Expression of Concern says a heck of a lot without — as befits the genre — coming to a particular conclusion. Take this (paywalled)* example describing a paper from a group at Huazhong Science and Technology University, Wuhan, China: Read the rest of this entry »

About these ads

2 for 2: Fraud, plagiarism force retraction of Staph aureus paper

with 3 comments

j food sciThe Journal of Food Science has retracted a 2012 paper by Chinese scientists, one of whom copped to having made up data in the paper — which also plagiarized from a 2009 article by other researchers — and forging his co-authors’ names on the manuscript.

The article, “A Multiplex PCR Assay for the Rapid and Sensitive detection of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Simultaneous Discrimination of Staphylococcus aureus from Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci,” appeared online in October 2012 and was written by a group from Northwest A & F University, in Yangling, and Tianshui Normal University.

It has been cited once, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge. From the abstract: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by amarcus41

January 28, 2014 at 9:30 am

Data manipulation knocks bird virus paper off perch

with one comment

journalvirolThe Journal of Virology has retracted a 2010 article on avian viruses marred by signs of bogus data.

The paper, “Avian Reovirus Nonstructural Protein p17-Induced G2/M Cell Cycle Arrest and Host Cellular Protein Translation Shutoff Involve Activation of p53-Dependent Pathways,” came from a group at National Pingtung University of Science and Technology, in Pingtung, China. It purported to find that: Read the rest of this entry »

We did what? Authors retract paper after forgetting they’d published the same study elsewhere

with one comment

j antimicrob chemoScientists: Have you ever found it difficult to keep track of all those papers you publish? Who can blame you? So many journals, so much pressure to publish or perish.

That must have been what happened to a quintet of authors from Shanghai who’ve just had to retract an article from the Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. Here’s the notice (sadly, behind a paywall) [see note at end of post] for “Role of clofazimine in the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: a retrospective observational cohort assessment:” Read the rest of this entry »

Gut instinct: Intestinal flora paper yanked for plagiarism

with 2 comments

frontcellinfectmicroA group of researchers in China has lost a paper on the human microbiome in Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology for cannibalizing much of it from previously published work by other scientists.

The article, titled “Human gut microbiota: dysbiosis and manipulation,” appeared on Sept. 27, 2012, and was written by a team from the Beijing Genomics Institute-Shenzhen. It has been cited just once, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge, by another paper in the same journal.

According to the retraction notice: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by amarcus41

January 2, 2014 at 11:00 am

Former NIH scientist falsified images in hepatitis study: ORI

with 10 comments

Baoyan Xu, via NIH

Baoyan Xu, via NIH

A former postdoc at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) committed misconduct in a study of hepatitis by falsely claiming that data from a single trial subject were actually from more than a dozen different people, the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has found.

The investigation was prompted by allegations made by readers of the paper. Baoyan Xu made what the ORI called “a limited admission” that “some better looking strips were repeatedly used as representatives for several times [sic].”

According to a report of the ORI’s findings to be published in the Federal Register tomorrow, the paper, “Hybrid DNA virus in Chinese patients with seronegative hepatitis discovered by deep sequencing, published earlier this year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS): Read the rest of this entry »

Written by ivanoransky

December 29, 2013 at 9:30 am

“Not suitable in this context” means retraction in pharmacology journal

with 5 comments

pbbPharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior had a curious retraction notice in September that we’re just now getting around to, but we think you’ll find it to have been worth the wait.

The article, “Interaction of Somatostatin Receptor-2 and Neuropeptide Y Receptor-1 in mice dorsal root ganglion neurons on the Pinch-Nerve injury model,” came from a group in Harbin, China, and Frieburg, Germany, and was published in April 2013.

According to the notice: Read the rest of this entry »

Journal takes different tacks on two cancer papers with image problems

leave a comment »

carcinogenCarcinogenesis has the publishing world’s version of a twin problem: two dysfunctional articles yet one gets retracted while the other merely suffers a correction. Is it nature — or nurture?

Here are the details. One article, “Chemopreventive effect of dietary glutamine on colitis-associated colon tumorigenesis in mice,” came from a group in China. Published earlier this year, the authors seem to have had some trouble with their figures. As the corrigendum explains:  Read the rest of this entry »

Written by amarcus41

December 12, 2013 at 11:30 am

Nature Medicine retracts MS paper with ghost data by former GSK researcher

with 7 comments

naturemed1213Nearly six months after first expressing concern about the validity of a 2010 paper on multiple sclerosis, Nature Medicine has retracted the article for containing “erroneous” data — which in this case don’t seem to have existed, making them more fabricated than wrong.

The paper, “Crucial role of interleukin-7 in T helper type 17 survival and expansion in autoimmune disease,” came from a group led by Jingwu Zhang, who at the time ran GlaxoSmithKline’s Research and Development Center in Shanghai.

In June, the journal issued an expression of concern about the article after readers discovered problems with the data, as reported by Nature Medicine’s blog.
Read the rest of this entry »

Same “difference,” as anesthesia paper retracted for plagiarism

with 3 comments

Cover, Coverabbild, Titel, TitelbildA group of anesthesiology researchers in China has lost their 2011 paper in Der Anaesthesist because, well, the article wasn’t theirs to begin with.

The paper, “Different anesthesia methods for laparoscopic cholecystectomy,” came from authors at the 309th Hospital of PLA, in Beijing, who purported to report on a randomized trial of 68 patients undergoing laparoscopic colon surgery with either general or spinal (that is, a nerve block) anesthesia. According to the abstract:
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by amarcus41

December 5, 2013 at 12:45 pm


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 31,329 other followers