Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Archive for the ‘china retractions’ Category

Tonic-clonic stats error sinks epilepsy paper

with one comment

pm_cover_dez_01A brain imaging study in children with epilepsy has been retracted by the Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging due to a statistics error.

Here’s the notice for “Microstructural Brain Abnormalities of Children of Idiopathic Generalized Epilepsy With Generalized Tonic-Clonic Seizure: A Voxel-Based Diffusional Kurtosis Imaging Study”: Read the rest of this entry »

Wasted breath: Cribbing earns retraction of anesthesia paper

with one comment

cbandbThe authors of a paper on anesthetic waste gases in the operating room have pulled the article for plagiarism.

The paper, titled “Further Pieces of Evidence to the Pulmonary Origin of Sevoflurane Escaping to the Operating Room During General Anaesthesia,” appeared in Cell Biochemistry and Biophysics and came from a group at various institutions in Harbin, China.

But according to the retraction notice, the further pieces weren’t really further, after all:
Read the rest of this entry »

Sampling the wrong part of the aorta sinks aneurysm paper

with one comment

plosoneA paper on an experimental treatment for abdominal aneurysms has been retracted after it was discovered samples had been taken from the wrong part of the aorta.

Here is the PLOS ONE notice for “Inhibition of Rho-Kinase by Fasudil Suppresses Formation and Progression of Experimental Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms:” Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Cat Ferguson

August 21st, 2014 at 9:30 am

I know you are but what am I? School program paper pulled for duplication

without comments

sciworldjrnlAn article on youth development programs in Hong Kong has been retracted for its similarity to another article on youth development programs by the same authors.

The paper, “Process Evaluation of a Positive Youth Development Program in Hong Kong Based on Different Cohorts,” appeared in 2012 in The Scientific World Journal, and was written by a pair of researchers with appointments in Hong Kong, Macau, Shanghai, and the United States. It has been cited twice, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

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

Serial figure fakers have expression of concern upgraded to a retraction

with 7 comments

Another retraction has appeared up for frequent fliers Jun Li, Kailun Zhang and Jiahong Xia at Huazhong Science and Technology University in Wuhan, China.

We’ve covered them twice before, for a variety of retractions, corrections, and expressions of concern.

The retraction, in Clinical and Experimental Immunology, upgrades an expression of concern published earlier this year, and is the team’s fourth.

Here’s the notice for “CCR5 blockade in combination with rapamycin prolongs cardiac allograft survival in mice”: Read the rest of this entry »

“Authors, please call us. Pretty please? OK, we’re going to retract your paper!”

with 8 comments

dovelogoThe title of this post isn’t exactly how the one-sided conversation between the editors of Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment and a group of researchers went. But it seems likely it was pretty close.

Here’s an expression of concern for “A cross-sectional study on perception of stigma by Chinese schizophrenia patients:” Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ivan Oransky

July 29th, 2014 at 12:45 pm

“Lack of experience and understanding” forces duplication retractions of liver cancer paper

with one comment

dovelogoA group of researchers in China has lost their paper on liver cancer after the first author admitted to duplication, also known, inelegantly, as self-plagiarism.

The paper, “Glycyrrhetinic acid-modified chitosan nanoparticles enhanced the effect of 5-fluorouracil in murine liver cancer model via regulatory T-cells,” appeared in the July 2013 issue of the Journal of Drug Design, Development and Therapy, a Dove Press title.

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

Rice researcher in ethics scrape threatens journal with lawsuit over coming retraction

with 6 comments

Guangwen Tang, a rice researcher at Tufts University, landed in hot water in 2012 after her team was accused of feeding Chinese children genetically modified Golden Rice without having obtained informed consent from the parents.

Now, she’s suing both Tufts and the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, which reportedly is retracting a paper, “ß-carotene in Golden Rice is as good as p-carotene in oil at providing vitamin A to children,” based on the federally funded research, claiming that the retraction would constitute defamation. (That retraction hasn’t happened yet.)

This isn’t the first time we’ve heard the retraction = defamation line. Readers might remember Ariel Fernandez, who threatened to sue us for writing about an expression of concern. Maybe a course on the Streisand Effect should be mandatory for PhD students?
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Cat Ferguson

July 17th, 2014 at 12:14 pm

Recursive plagiarism? Researchers may have published a duplicate of a study retracted for plagiarism

with 15 comments

acta physica sinicaSometimes plagiarism, like an onion, has layers.

That appears to be the case in a paper brought to our attention by sharp-eyed reader Vladimir Baulin, whose work was copied in a 2006 paper that Journal of Biological Physics retracted for plagiarism.

But you can’t keep a good thief down: the plagiarizing authors just popped up in a new journal with a Chinese-language version of their retracted paper, that looks an awful lot like a knock-off. Here’s a note from Baulin: Read the rest of this entry »

Misconduct prompts retraction of prostatectomy paper

with 2 comments

jsrcoverA group of urologists in China has lost their 2012 paper in the Journal of Surgical Research because one of the authors was evidently rather naughty.

The article, “Is the impact of the extent of lymphadenectomy in radical prostatectomy related to the disease risk? A single center prospective study,” purported to show that: Read the rest of this entry »