Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Archive for the ‘am j resp cell mol bio’ Category

Former Duke researcher at center of lawsuit lodges 16th retraction

without comments

ajrcmb-2016-55-issue-5-coverTwo former researchers at Duke University at the center of a lawsuit by a whistleblower to recoup millions in federal funding have lost yet another paper.

This is hardly the first retraction for Erin Potts-Kant, who used to work in the pulmonary lab of now-retired William Michael Foster. Earlier this year, a lawsuit filed by a former colleague of Potts-Kant and Foster was unsealed alleging that the pair — along with the university — included fraudulent data in materials involving more than 60 grants, worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

That is the legal side of their story. The science publishing side is that Potts-Kant and Foster have been steadily adding to their list of retractions — this paper represents her 16th, and his 13th.

Here’s the notice for “Nitric oxide mediates relative airway hyporesponsiveness to lipopolysaccharide in surfactant protein A-deficient mice:” Read the rest of this entry »

“Unreliable” data suffocates third paper for Duke pulmonary team

with 2 comments

ajrcmbOnce again, a team of Duke University scientists has retracted a paper, this time due to “unreliable” figure data.

With co-authors at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Duke team has withdrawn a paper from the American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology after concern about data in three figures led them to repeat one of their main experiments. They subsequently found “no evidence” supporting their previous conclusion.

By our count, it is the third retraction from a team that includes William Foster, a pulmonary researcher at the Duke Medical Center. The Duke team retracted a paper in 2013 on a related topic—the effect of early life ozone exposure on airways—from the Journal of Applied Physiology when it was discovered that, familiarly, data in a figure were “unreliable”. Recently, they also retracted a PNAS paper on asthma treatment earlier this month, due to missing primary data and mismatched data from two sources.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Megan Scudellari

May 4th, 2015 at 9:30 am

Group investigated by University of Louisville corrects lung cancer paper after retracting six others

without comments

A group of researchers whose work has been under investigation at the University of Louisville has issued a correction for a paper in the American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology (AJRCMB).

The correction follows three retractions each in the Journal of Biological Chemistry and the AJRCMB, the latter of which made it clear that lab member ShouWei Han was responsible for the manipulations and duplications that brought down the papers. Here’s the new notice, which appeared in the March 1, 2012 issue of the journal: Read the rest of this entry »

Two more retractions in respiratory journal as University of Louisville completes investigation

with 2 comments

Last July, we reported on four retractions by a group of researchers at the University of Louisville, and we noted that the scientists’ work was under investigation. That investigation has apparently concluded, according to a retraction notice in the American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology for two of their papers: Read the rest of this entry »