Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Archive for the ‘rsc advances’ Category

Caught Our Notice: Unusual — journal flags paper for concerns, then updates them

without comments

Via Wikimedia

Title: Filled and peptide-modified single-walled carbon nanotubes: synthesis, characterization, and in vitro test for cancer cell targeting

What Caught Our Attention: After an expression of concern (EOC) is published in a journal, the usual procedure is to either publish a subsequent correction or retraction — or, unfortunately, leave it sit ad infinitum. But apparently, there’s another option. Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Alison Abritis

January 3rd, 2018 at 9:01 am

Chem paper “the product of intentional, knowing, or reckless falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism”

without comments

rsc-advancesA journal has retracted a study after an institutional investigation concluded that it was riddled with misconduct.

According to the retraction notice in RSC Advances, the first author submitted the paper without the knowledge of the other two co-authors, and the paper was falsified, fabricated, and plagiarized. The notice cites a probe at the University of Tennessee (UT) at Knoxville — where all three listed authors are based — that concluded the study’s findings were invalid.

We asked a UT spokesperson if the first author, Sammy Eni Eni, was still based at the institution, and received this response: Read the rest of this entry »

Cancer paper flagged due to “credible” concerns over its reliability, journal says

with one comment

rsc-advancesA journal has issued an expression of concern (EOC) for a cancer study after the publisher received what it called a “credible” tip that its results may not be reliable.

According to the EOC, published in RSC Advances, the paper is now under investigation.

Here’s the EOC for “Filled and peptide-modified single-walled carbon nanotubes: synthesis, characterization, and in vitro test for cancer cell targeting:” Read the rest of this entry »

Nanoparticle paper earns retraction for lack of reproducibility

with 3 comments

issue 1 - RSC Advances_2012.inddA nanoparticle article published earlier this year has been retracted by RSC Advances for lack of reproducibility, although we haven’t been able to get more details about what happened.

Here’s the notice for “Sonochemical synthesis of poly(methyl methacrylate) core–surfactin shell nanoparticles for recyclable removal of heavy metal ions and its cytotoxicity” (freely available but requires sign-in): Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Cat Ferguson

November 25th, 2014 at 9:30 am

Updates: Journal of Climate adds info about withdrawn hot temps paper, chemistry journal corrects retraction notice

with 13 comments

We have a few updates on stories we’ve covered.

In June, we wrote about the withdrawal of a paper claiming that temperatures in the last 60 years were warmest in the last 1,000 years. At the time, we reported, following posts by others, that the authors had been made aware of errors in their work and were withdrawing it to correct their calculations.

For several months, the page housing the Journal of Climate study read:

The requested article is not currently available on this site.

It still does. But another page that should house the paper now reads, as commenter Skiphil notes: Read the rest of this entry »

Two Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) Advances retractions, for unreliable results, surprised author

with 2 comments

Authors of two separate studies in RSC Advances — RSC is the Royal Society of Chemistry — have retracted their papers.

Here’s one notice, for “Laser-induced gold/chitosan nanocomposites with tailored wettability applied to multi-irradiated microfluidic channels:” Read the rest of this entry »


Follow this blog

Get every new post delivered right to your inbox.

Email address