Archive for the ‘uk retractions’ Category
Immunology paper retracted for inappropriate presentation but “no evidence of intentional misconduct”
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.
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 »
So it’s no surprise that, when well-known computer scientist Richard Bornat claimed his PhD student had created a test to separate people who would succeed at programming versus those who didn’t, people happily embraced it. After all, it’s much easier to say there’s a large population that will just never get it, instead of re-examining your teaching methods.
The paper, called “The camel has two humps,” suggested instead of a bell curve, programming success rates look more like a two-humped ungulate: the kids who get it, and the kids who never will.
Though the paper was never formally published, it made the rounds pretty extensively. Now, Bornat has published a retraction, stating that he wrote the article during an antidepressant-driven mania that also earned him a suspension from his university. Here’s the meat of the notice: Read the rest of this entry »
Last October, the BMJ published a paper by a group of researchers from the United States and Canada questioning the use of statins in patients considered at low risk of cardiovascular disease.
The article has been cited eight times since then, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge. It mentioned data from another study that reported a high rate of side effects in patients who used the drugs, between 18% and 20% — suggesting that those who received little or no benefit from the therapy could be more more likely to suffer harm than good.
But that citation turns out to have been flawed — prompting the journal to take the unusual step of removing those “statements” from the article and another it published about the issue that has been cited six times. And in an editorial, BMJ editor Fiona Godlee said she has asked a panel of experts to review the original paper to determine if it ought to be retracted completely: Read the rest of this entry »