About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Archive for the ‘behind a paywall’ Category

Doing the right thing: Physicists retract paper after becoming aware of “a fundamental error”

with one comment

prl-bannerThe authors of a paper in Physical Review Letters have retracted it, after another researcher pointed out a mistake.

F. Sattin and D.F. Escande write in the notice for “Alfvénic Propagation: A Key to Nonlocal Effects in Magnetized Plasmas” (which is behind a paywall) that after the paper was published, they “we became aware of a fundamental error in the normalization of our equations.” Excerpt: Read the rest of this entry »

About these ads

Stem cell researcher in Korea up to half a dozen retractions

leave a comment »

stem cellsAlmost two years ago, we brought you — with the help of Trevor Stokes — the story of a stem cell researcher in Korea whose publication record, and career, unraveled after evidence of image manipulation surfaced in her work.

We’ve reported on four retractions, all in Antioxidants & Redox Signaling, by Soo-Kyung Kang, formerly of Seoul National University resulting from the efforts of a whistleblower. There has been another in Human Gene Therapy: Read the rest of this entry »

Harvard and the Brigham investigating leading heart group for “compromised” data

with 33 comments

circulationcoverCirculation has retracted a 2012 study by a group of Harvard heart specialists over concerns of corrupt data, and the university is investigating. The group was led by Piero Anversa, a leading cardiologist, and Joseph Loscalzo — who will be familiar to readers of Circulation as the editor in chief of that journal. (Anversa’s also on the editorial board).

Read the rest of this entry »

Entomologist surprised to find name on now-retracted paper alleging fossils oppose Darwin’s theory of evolution

with 22 comments

jblsThe Journal of Biology and Life Science, published by the Macrothink Institute, has retracted a paper that claimed “fossil does not provides [sic] the convincing and direct evidences for evolution,” for reasons that they left to us to figure out.

The entire notice for “Fossils Evidences (Paleontology) Opposite to Darwin’s Theory,” allegedly written by Md. Abdul Ahad, of Hajee Mohamed Danesh Science and Technology University in Bangladesh, and Charles D. Michener, of the University of Kansas, reads:

The editorial board announced that this article has been retracted on February 25, 2014. If you have any further question, please contact us at: jbls@macrothink.org

Read the rest of this entry »

Not-so-tiny ethics issues as Micron retracts first-ever paper, and authors apologize for five duplicates

with 5 comments

micronThe editors of the journal Micron — an Elsevier title — have retracted its first paper ever, and in an editorial marking the occasion, take on a number of issues in scientific publishing misconduct.

The beginning of the editorial (which is paywalled): Read the rest of this entry »

Written by ivanoransky

March 10, 2014 at 12:36 pm

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 »

Should readers get a refund when they pay to access seriously flawed papers?

with 19 comments

Photo by Bilal Kamoon via flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilal-kamoon/

Photo by Bilal Kamoon via flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilal-kamoon/

Time for another installment of Ask Retraction Watch:

Let’s say I’m collecting relevant papers to write a review, or preparing a project, and I have rather limited time. I find a few interesting papers, bump into some paywalls, ask the authors for the .pdf without any response, and finally I decide to pay, say, $20 USD each for 8 papers. However, upon reading these papers I notice that two or three of them present serious irregularities — say, they’re 90% similar to some other published papers. Well, I’ve just spent $160 USD on these papers, trusting the publisher in the mumbo jumbo that all papers “meet high quality international standards,” are “peer-reviewed by experts,” “handled by selected editors,” etc., and yet they are clearly deeply flawed. Moreover, I investigate further online and I find that these and other issues in the papers had been already pointed out by readers online, e.g., in PubPeer or Retraction Watch comments, more than a year before.

Should I be entitled to a refund?

Take our poll, and leave a comment: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by ivanoransky

February 26, 2014 at 9:30 am

Immunology researcher with Expression of Concern has cluster of recent retractions, corrections

with one comment

j heart lung transplantXia Jiahong, an immunology researcher at Huazhong Science and Technology University in Wuhan, China, who had a paper subject to a fascinating Expression of Concern earlier this month, turns out to have had a few other entries in his retraction and correction record recently.

Here’s a retraction in the January 2014 issue of the Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, for “Combined treatment with chemokine receptor 5 blocker and cyclosporine induces prolonged graft survival in a mouse model of cardiac transplantation,” a paper first published in 2010: Read the rest of this entry »

Expression of Concern reveals journal editors bending over backward to give authors benefit of the doubt

with 11 comments

ceiSometimes, an Expression of Concern says a heck of a lot without — as befits the genre — coming to a particular conclusion. Take this (paywalled)* example describing a paper from a group at Huazhong Science and Technology University, Wuhan, China: Read the rest of this entry »

This retraction stinks: Authors pull paper on pig gas

with 8 comments

ajasHere’s a stinky retraction.

The authors of a 2006 article in the Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences have yanked the paper — without an explanation.

The article, titled “Effectiveness of Lactobacillus plantarum strain KJ-10311 to remove characteristic Malodorous gases in piggery slurry,” came from J. D. Kim and K. M. Park. Kim appears to be a member of the journal’s editorial board, which perhaps explains why the authors were able to get away with this retraction notice: Read the rest of this entry »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 31,188 other followers