Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Archive for the ‘spain’ Category

Quantum physics paper pulled for “serious theoretical errors,” notice accidentally paywalled

with 2 comments

physicalreviewlettersA paper on photonic quantum walks has been retracted over a theoretical disagreement.

The notice is also paywalled, which the editorial director has assured us is a mistake that is being corrected.

We sent the COPE guidelines on retraction to the American Physical Society, which publishes Physical Review Letters. Editorial director Dan Kulp told us the paywall was the unintentional consequence of a web redesign, and that they are in the process of restoring public access to “all Errata-types, including Retractions.”

Here’s the rest of his statement: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Cat Ferguson

October 27th, 2014 at 11:30 am

Authors retract PNAS paper questioned on PubPeer after original films can’t be found

with 29 comments

pnas31912PubPeer leads the way again: The authors of a paper about Parkinson’s disease in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) have retracted it, several months after a commenter highlighted the exact issue that led to the article’s demise.

The paper, originally published in September 2013, was called into question by a commenter on PubPeer in July 2014, who identified two of the paper’s figures as duplications: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Cat Ferguson

October 23rd, 2014 at 10:30 am

Holocaust paper yanked for plagiarizing

with one comment

ejesPro tip: If you’re going to write a paper on giving voice to hidden words, PLEASE try not to plagiarize!

Esther Sánchez-Pardo, of Complutense University in Madrid, was the author of a 2010 article in the European Journal of English Studies titled “Who will carry the word? The threshold between unspeakability and silence in the Holocaust narratives of Charlotte Delbo and Jorge Semprun.”

The problem, it turns out, is that a couple of other authors had their words carried, but Sánchez-Pardo didn’t bother to speak their names.

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

Written by amarcus41

August 8th, 2014 at 11:30 am

Who moved my ants? Species confusion sinks paper on invasive species

without comments

Image via Wikimedia

“How many and which ant species are being accidentally moved around the world?,” published in 2013, has been retracted because the authors “used a wrong list of species and omitted to include a reference.”

The authors claim that this affected the magnitude of the issue, but not the overall conclusion.

The paper was written up by the press several times, including by the BBC, though according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge, it hasn’t been cited.

Here is the notice: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Cat Ferguson

July 29th, 2014 at 11:00 am

A first? Dental journal retracts three papers because authors didn’t pay publication charges

with 41 comments

dmj_33_1Dental Materials Journal has retracted three papers by different groups of authors for “violation of our publishing policies and procedures” — which turns out to be a polite way of saying “they wouldn’t pay our fees.”

The articles are: Read the rest of this entry »

Spying on The Onion: Journal retracts drone paper for duplication

with 5 comments

euro j agronomyWhen you think of drones, you probably think of deadly strikes in faraway lands. But what about studying crops?

Take “Use of digital photography from unmanned aerial vehicles for estimation of leaf area index in onion (Allium cepa L.),” a study published earlier this year in the European Journal of Agronomy by researchers from Spain: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ivan Oransky

November 8th, 2013 at 9:30 am

Neural Networks retracts rerun

without comments

neuralnetworksIrony alert: If you’re going to write articles about recurrent neural networks, make sure they don’t, well, recur.

The journal Neural Networks has retracted a 2012 paper by a group of researchers from Spain for publishing what amounted to a repeat of a 2011 article in a different but closely related journal. Scientific publishing, alas, is not like Hollywood, where remakes of movies and TV shows is not only acceptable, it seems to be the only flavor producers are willing to taste.

The article was titled “Hopf Bifurcation Stability in Hopfield Neural Networks” — Hopf, for those keeping score at home, is Eberhard Hopf, a famous (and politically controversial) mathematician and founder of something called ergodic theory — and it came from scientists at the University of La Laguna, in the Canary Islands.

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

Paper on vulvar tumor retracted. Why? Journal won’t say

without comments

JLGTCancer of the vulva may well be a topic most people do not want to discuss. But we wish the Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease (the official journal of several societies, including the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, the Australian Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology and the Society of Canadian Colposcopists) had been a bit more forthcoming about its retraction of a 2013 paper on the subject.

The article, “Granular Cell Tumor of the Vulva,” appeared in the January issue of the journal from a group whose last last author was Sofia Vázquez Navarrete, a pathologist at La Línea de la Concepción, in Cádiz, Spain.

Its abstract stated: Read the rest of this entry »

A masterbatch: More polymer retractions, gerontology journal lifts paywall, Microbiology notices appear

without comments

masterbatch

Germans and Italians are big masterbatchers. Click to enlarge. via http://bit.ly/100YBKB

Our mothers told us that if we used the masterbatch process, we’d go blind. And what better way to gather some updates to recent posts than to include one that involves said masterbatch process?

First, a retraction John Spevacek noticed when he tried clicking on the link in a Journal of Applied Polymer Science retraction we’d covered: Read the rest of this entry »

A regretful retraction for plagiarism and duplication in Proteome Science

without comments

proteomescilogoApologies, mea culpas, regrets. Kids, let this be a warning to you: Don’t plagiarize. You will get caught, and you’ll have to come clean.

Just ask a group of Spanish researchers who published a 2011 paper in Proteome Science, then lost it this past April because they’d stolen text and a figure from previously published work — some, but not all of it, their own.

The retraction notice for “Clinical and technical phosphoproteomic research” tells the story: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by amarcus41

June 10th, 2013 at 1:40 pm