Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Archive for the ‘journal of cellular physiology’ Category

Second cell bio retraction from UPitt investigation of tweaked images

without comments

Journal of Cellular Physiology: Volume 229, Number 10, October 2Two researchers, Tong Wu and Chang Han, have lost a second paper as the result of a University of Pittsburgh investigation into image manipulations.

The first retraction, in Journal of Cellular Biochemistry, went live in February. The researchers, currently based at Tulane University, were originally tapped by pseudonymous tipster Juuichi Jigen, who created a website in 2012 to chronicle the allegations.

The blog lists six papers by the pair with supposedly questionable figures. According to Jigen, this latest retraction, in the Journal of Cellular Physiology, contains a figure (2A) that appears to reuse data from another paper, and another figure (3) where the data appear to be manipulated.

Read the rest of this entry »

Plagiarism (and plenty of it) fells Crohn’s paper

with 5 comments

jcpcover414A group of researchers from Italy has lost their 2010 paper in the Journal of Cellular Physiology for having plagiarized — in style.

The article, “Early Years of Biological Agents Therapy in Crohn’s Disease and Risk of the Human Polyomavirus JC Reactivation,” was led by Valeria Pietropaolo, of Sapienza University in Rome and the Sbarro Institute for Cancer Research and Molecular Medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia.

The paper has been cited 10 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge. The abstract, which is still available, reads:

Read the rest of this entry »

Author whose lawyers threatened Science Fraud corrects another paper

with 14 comments


Rui Curi

Rui Curi, the Brazilian scientist whose lawyers’ threats helped force the shutdown of, has corrected another paper criticized by the site.

Here’s the correction for “Effects of moderate electrical stimulation on reactive species production by primary rat skeletal muscle cells: Cross-talk between superoxide and nitric oxide production,” in the Journal of Cellular Physiology: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ivan Oransky

February 26th, 2013 at 10:56 am

A correction for Alirio Melendez, in Journal of Cellular Physiology

without comments

We’ve been covering the case of Alirio Melendez, three of whose papers have been retracted amidst questions about almost 70 studies. The latest development is a correction in the Journal of Cellular Physiology, which has already retracted one of his papers, of a study on which he was a co-author.

Here’s the correction for “Short dysfunctional telomeres impair the repair of arsenite-induced oxidative damage in mouse cells”: Read the rest of this entry »

Third retraction arrives for Alirio Melendez, this one in the Journal of Cellular Physiology

with 6 comments

Alirio Melendez, the former National University of Singapore researcher who has already retracted two papers in the midst of an investigation into about 70 of his publications, has had a third retracted a third.

Here’s the notice from the Journal of Cellular Physiology: Read the rest of this entry »

Zhiguo Wang retractions appear in the Journal of Cellular Physiology

with 8 comments

Last month, we reported that the last three of six promised retractions by Zhiguo Wang, who was a researcher at the Montreal Heart Institute until the results of an Institute investigation forced him to resign in early September — would be in the Journal of Cellular Physiology. They’ve now appeared.

Here are the three notices, which are far more informative than the Journal of Biological Chemistry was — and which make it clear Wang acted alone: Read the rest of this entry »

Remaining Zhiguo Wang retractions will be in the Journal of Cellular Physiology

with 16 comments

We’ve been following the case of Zhiguo Wang, the former Montreal Heart Institute researcher who was forced to resign his post in early September following an investigation into his work. At the time of that announcement, two retractions of the Wang group’s papers — which we had reported on in August — had appeared. The Institute said they had requested three more.

We figured that meant a total of five, although the Institute wouldn’t say which they were. So when we found out about a third retraction, in the Journal of Cell Science, we said it was the first of the remaining three.

We were wrong. Read the rest of this entry »