Archive for the ‘behind a paywall’ Category
Want bogus data, million-dollar fraud allegations and a scientist on the lam? We give you Alain Malafosse.
The British Journal of Psychiatry has retracted a June 2013 paper by Malafosse and his colleagues on the genetics of bipolar disorder in children because Malafosse allegedly fabricated key data in the study.
The article, “Childhood maltreatment and methylation of the glucocorticoid receptor gene NR3C1 in bipolar disorder,” purported to find that people with bipolar disorder who had experienced more, and more severe, abuse early in life were more likely to show epigenetic changes. According to the abstract:
An article first published online May 16th by a group of researchers at Brown University was retracted on June 1st, apparently because a new and better method for analyzing the data was developed…at some point.
The timeline is not exactly clear from the retraction, though we’ve reached out to the author and publisher and will update with any new information.
Here’s the (paywalled) notice for “High-level production of 3-hydroxypropionatein Escherichia coli and Saccharomyces cerevisiae by introducing part of the 3-hydroxypropionate/4-hydroxybutyrate cycle from Metallosphaera sedula”:
Fred Walumbwa, the leadership researcher at Florida International University who has retracted six papers for what appear to be problematic data, now has an impressive mega-correction in the form of an “addendum.”
The paper, “Relationships between Authentic Leadership, Moral Courage, and Ethical and Pro-Social Behaviors,” was published in Business Ethics Quarterly in October 2011, by Walumbwa and two colleagues, Sean Hannah and Bruce Avolio.
Here’s the abstract for the paper, which has been cited 18 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge:
Recursive plagiarism? Researchers may have published a duplicate of a study retracted for plagiarism
That appears to be the case in a paper brought to our attention by sharp-eyed reader Vladimir Baulin, whose work was copied in a 2006 paper that Journal of Biological Physics retracted for plagiarism.
But you can’t keep a good thief down: the plagiarizing authors just popped up in a new journal with a Chinese-language version of their retracted paper, that looks an awful lot like a knock-off. Here’s a note from Baulin: Read the rest of this entry »