Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Archive for the ‘uk retractions’ Category

“Significant” copying forces retraction of sternotomy paper

with one comment

icatsInteractive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery has yanked a 2005 sternotomy paper by a group of researchers who plagiarized from an earlier article on the subject.

The article, “The complications of repeat median sternotomy in paediatrics: six-months follow-up of consecutive cases,” came from a team at Glenfield Hospital in Leicester, England, and has been cited eight times, according to Scopus.

Here’s the notice:

Read the rest of this entry »

Article using tin foil, cling wrap to debunk ocean warming retracted after urgent peer review

with 9 comments

wessexA conference proceedings paper that attempted to debunk ocean warming due to climate change using tin foil and cling wrap has been retracted by the Wessex Institute of Technology (WIT) Press.

The paper, “A Comparison Of The Efficacy Of Greenhouse Gas Forcing And Solar Forcing,” was published as part of the proceedings of a July 2014 conference in Spain called Heat Transfer 2014.

Here’s what author Robert (Bob) A. Irvine, about whom we haven’t been able to find information, claimed to have done in the paper: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Cat Ferguson

October 21st, 2014 at 9:30 am

Oxford group reverses authorship requirements for sharing data after questions from Retraction Watch

with 4 comments

oxfordIt seemed like an egregious violation of academic standards.

A researcher forwarded us a data access agreement from the University of Oxford, in which Schedule 4 read as follows:
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ivan Oransky

October 6th, 2014 at 11:00 am

Posted in uk retractions

Doing the right thing: Particle physicists pull paper after equation collides with the truth

with 4 comments

physicalreviewlettersThree physicists at Imperial College London have retracted a paper on Coulomb collisions, a kind of fender bender between two charged particles, after realizing their equations were written wrong.

The mistake resulted in an erroneous conclusion about the strength of the collisions.

Here’s the notice for “Effects of Large-Angle Coulomb Collisions on Inertial Confinement Fusion Plasmas”: Read the rest of this entry »

Author of alcohol paper retracted for plagiarism defends copy-and-paste strategy

with 9 comments

nmlogoThe authors of a paper retracted for plagiarism of a popular website have decided not to take the charges — which they don’t contest — lying down.

Here’s the notice for “Alcohol consumption and hormonal alterations related to muscle hypertrophy: a review,” which appeared in Nutrition & Metabolism, a BioMed Central title: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ivan Oransky

September 30th, 2014 at 9:30 am

Chemical engineering journal retracts paper with unknowing author

with 4 comments

AiChemE-logoAIChemE’s website promises, “Subscribing to the AIChE Journal is like having access to nine topical journals in the field.”

Without a subscription, though, you might miss out on some valuable topical information – like why a paper you want to cite has been retracted, something the Committee on Publication Ethics recommends be freely available.

Here’s the notice for “Flow Structure and Particle Motions in a Gas-Polyethylene Fluidized Bed,” originally published in 2007:

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Cat Ferguson

September 10th, 2014 at 11:00 am

Elephant femur paper subject to expression of concern retracted following investigation

with 6 comments

panagiotopoulou

Olga Panagiotopoulou, via University of Queensland

Last month, we reported on a 2012 paper in Interface whose authors had the journal issue an expression of concern about it because of “some of the data and methods.” At the time, The Royal Veterinary College at the University of London was conducting an investigation into the research.

Today, that expression of concern was upgraded to a retraction. Here’s the notice: Read the rest of this entry »

Mistaken punctuation, misreferencing, and other euphemisms for plagiarism

with 13 comments

soas_logo_3It’s always amusing to see how far a journal will bend over backward to avoid coming out and calling something “plagiarism.”

We’ve got two notices for you that exemplify the phenomenon, which we discussed in our Lab Times column last year.

The first, an article about apartheid, was presented at a student conference and published in the Polyvocia: The SOAS Journal of Graduate Research. It was later retracted because the author “should have used quotation marks around material written verbatim from that source.”

Here’s the notice: Read the rest of this entry »

Immunology paper retracted for inappropriate presentation but “no evidence of intentional misconduct”

with 2 comments

immun40_4.c1.inddA paper in Immnunity has been retracted after two separate panels determined some of the figures “inappropriately presented” the data but cleared the team of wrongdoing.

However, the original data are now unavailable, according to the notice, so there’s no way to know if the paper’s conclusions are sound.

Here’s the notice for “Suppressors of Cytokine Signaling 2 and 3 Diametrically Control Macrophage Polarization”: Read the rest of this entry »

Panel says BMJ was right to not retract two disputed statin papers

with 4 comments

bmjA panel reviewing The BMJ‘s handling of two controversial statin papers said the journal didn’t err when it corrected, rather than retracted, the articles.

The articles — a research paper and a commentary – suggested that use of statins in people at low risk for cardiovascular disease could be doing far more harm than good. Both articles inaccurately cited a study that provided data important to their conclusions — an error pointed out vigorously by a British researcher, Rory Collins, who demanded that the journal pull the pieces.

In a letter to Godlee this spring, Collins wrote: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by amarcus41

August 1st, 2014 at 7:01 pm