Archive for the ‘india retractions’ Category
A team of entomologists in India had to put their new species celebration on hold last year, when they found out their discovery had already been discovered.
The Journal of Insect Science paper, initially published in December 2012, was retracted in October 2013, after several entomologists confirmed that the beetle was actually a previously identified species called Acanthophorus serraticornis. (The notice has a November 2014 date, but we understand that’s because the journal switched servers.)
Here’s the notice for “A new record of longicorn beetle, Acanthophorus rugiceps, from India as a root borer on physic nut, Jatropha curcas, with a description of life stages, biology, and seasonal dynamics”: Read the rest of this entry »
Three doctors at the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER) in Chandigarh are losing a paper based on phone calls to the Drug Information Unit, a phone line that patients could call to learn more about the drugs they were considering taking.
The catch: It was all made up.
According to an investigation by the Hindustan Times, the phone was disconnected between 2012 and May 2014, though ‘data’ for the paper was allegedly collected in 2013. We imagine that would make it difficult to answer the 56 calls the paper claims a junior resident took over the course of a month.
The HT reports that the Journal of Clinical & Diagnostic Research paper, “Drug Information Unit as an Effective Tool for Promoting Rational Drug Use,” is being retracted, and that the dean has asked for an official investigation. We’ve reached out to the journal, and will update with any new information.
This isn’t the worst of recent allegations against hospital staff at PGIMER. Orthopedics professor Vishal Kumar was accused of being in bed with pharmaceutical companies and harassing several employees. From the HT: Read the rest of this entry »
The Journal of International Oral Health has retracted a 2014 paper on dental pain by a group from India. Although the ostensible reason was plagiarism, we wonder if the offending authors might gone a bit further.
The article, “Sniffing out pain: An in vivo intranasal study of analgesic efficacy,” purported to be a study of 20 patients receiving different therapies for emergency oral pain. It has yet to be cited, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge. Here’s the abstract: Read the rest of this entry »
Here’s the notice for “Sonochemical synthesis of poly(methyl methacrylate) core–surfactin shell nanoparticles for recyclable removal of heavy metal ions and its cytotoxicity” (freely available but requires sign-in): Read the rest of this entry »
A dentistry journal has retracted a paper after discovering the research was lifted from dissertation work by two people unrelated to the paper authors.
The paper has been cited at least once since the lies came to light, as we reported earlier this month.
The journal contacted the relevant parties on October 29 with the following email about “Degradation of 2,4-dinitroanisole (DNAN) by metabolic cooperative activity of Pseudomonas sp. strain FK357andRhodococcus imtechensis strain RKJ300,” although no notice has been posted: Read the rest of this entry »
On Monday, we were first to report that a study of green coffee bean extract for weight loss touted on the Dr. Oz Show had been retracted.
Two authors of a 2012 paper sponsored by a company that made grand claims about green coffee bean extract’s abilities to help people lose weight have retracted it. The study was cited by The Dr. Oz Show, and last month it cost the company a $3.5 million settlement with the Feds.
Here’s the notice for “Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, linear dose, crossover study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a green coffee bean extract in overweight subjects,” a paper originally published in Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity: Targets and Therapy: Read the rest of this entry »
On October 2, a 2008 physics paper, “Generation of a superposition of coherent states in a resonant cavity and its nonclassicality and decoherence,” was retracted for “several scientific errors,” pointed out by a comment published in the same journal. The original authors rewrote the paper, but it was not up to the standards of Canadian Journal of Physics, so it was rejected, and the original was retracted.
Here’s a prime example of the consequences of that bureaucratic foot-dragging: Ten months after being told that Fazlurrahman Khan had fabricated his data, and two months after announcing two of Khan’s papers would be retracted from two of its journals, Elsevier still has not retracted either paper.
Worse, at least one of the papers, “Degradation of 2,4-dinitroanisole (DNAN) by metabolic cooperative activity of Pseudomonas sp. strain FK357 and Rhodococcus imtechensis strain RKJ300,” in the journal Chemosphere, has been cited since the announcement was made. In fact, the paper was published in Journal of Hazardous Materials, the Elsevier journal that is dragging its feet retracting another of Khan’s papers, “Aerobic degradation of 4-nitroaniline (4-NA) via novel degradation intermediates by Rhodococcus sp. strain FK48.”