Archive for the ‘journal of cellular physiology’ Category
A 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:
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 »
We’ve been covering the case of Alirio Melendez, three of whose papers have been retracted amidst questions about almost 70 studies.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.
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
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.
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 »