About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Archive for the ‘faseb journal’ Category

“Barriers to retraction may impede correction of the literature:” New study

with 9 comments

faseb june 2014One of the complaints we often hear about the self-correcting nature of science is that authors and editors seem very reluctant to retract papers with obvious fatal flaws. Indeed, it seems fairly clear that the number of papers retracted is smaller than the number of those that should be.

To try to get a sense of how errors are corrected in the literature, Arturo Casadevall, Grant Steen, and Ferric Fang, whose work on retractions will be familiar to our readers, in a new paper in the FASEB Journal, look at the sources of error in papers retracted for reasons other than misconduct.

Here’s the abstract (emphasis ours): Read the rest of this entry »

About these ads

Written by Ivan Oransky

June 16, 2014 at 10:00 am

Penkowa-Pedersen paper retracted nearly three years after being subjected to Notice of Concern

with one comment

faseb journalWe have an update on the complicated story of Milena Penkowa and Bente Klarlund Pedersen.

Two papers coauthored by the pair — who have both been found guilty of scientific dishonesty by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty — have been retracted by the FASEB Journal.

Here’s one notice (both are unfortunately behind a paywall): Read the rest of this entry »

Bitter legal fight leads to a retracted retraction

with 19 comments

faseb june 2013Two years ago, the FASEB Journal retracted a paper that it had initially agreed to correct, after a dean at one of the author’s institutions said that a “well-recognized and top-class fact finding commission concluded that the publication contains gross flaws.” The retraction of the 2003 paper, as we noted at the time, punctuated a complicated case involving several investigations as well as legal maneuvering.

Now, the journal has retracted the retraction. Here’s the beginning of the notice: Read the rest of this entry »

Author retracts FASEB Journal paper for data reuse

with 5 comments

fasebThe FASEB Journal has retracted a 2012 paper by a group from the University of Alabama, Birmingham (UAB), looking at the role of a tumor-suppressing micro-RNA in pulmonary fibrosis. The retraction suggests the provenance of the data are in question, and we learned details of what went wrong.

Here’s the notice, which, sadly, is behind a $12-per-day paywall: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Adam Marcus

February 5, 2013 at 8:30 am

FASEB J retracts 15-year-old study after author comes forward, but universities decline to investigate

with 9 comments

The FASEB Journal — FASEB stands for the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology — is retracting a 15-year-old paper without the consent of all of the authors, despite what seem like valiant attempts to figure out exactly what went wrong.

Here’s the notice for the University of Bern-University of Urbino paper:
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ivan Oransky

June 7, 2012 at 10:47 am

Following investigation, FASEB Journal retracts paper after agreeing to run a correction

with 28 comments

A contested retraction has punctuated the complicated saga of a 2003 paper in the FASEB Journal. (FASEB stands for the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.)

A retraction notice for the paper, “Molecular analysis of Nogo expression in the hippocampus during development and following lesion and seizure,” appeared in mid-June: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ivan Oransky

August 12, 2011 at 9:30 am

Another retraction for Milena Penkowa, this one in Experimental Physiology

with one comment

There’s another retraction in the the complicated case of Milena Penkowa, the former University of Copenhagen researcher being investigated for scientific misconduct and misuse of grant funds. The paper, in Experimental Physiology, was titled “Exercise-induced metallothionein expression in human skeletal muscle fibres” and was published online in January 2005.

It’s the second retraction for Penkowa, who did not sign either of them. According to the notice: Read the rest of this entry »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 35,754 other followers