Archive for the ‘behind a paywall’ Category
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— who have both been found guilty of scientific dishonesty by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty — have been retracted by the FASEB Journal.
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 »
Xia 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 »
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 »
The paper, “Different bone mineral density in cervical and endometrial cancer,” came from a group of Soonchunhyang University and was published online late last year. It purported to look at the association between gynecologic cancers and bone mineral density: Read the rest of this entry »
Many devotees of French film consider Jean Renoir’s 1939 La Règle du jeu (The Rules of the Game) to be the best example of the genre, and indeed of movie making writ large.
Bad cut alert: One of the rules of the publishing game is, “ne pas plagier,” which we don’t think we need to translate here.
But that’s something that Robert Cardullo seems to have neglected. Cardullo, of Izmir University of Economics in Turkey, isn’t a nobody in the world of film criticism (you can say movie reviewing if you like, we won’t mind). Here’s a bio from Mellen Press: Read the rest of this entry »
Pascale Meier left CHUV and University of Lausanne last fall, and this week agreed to leave his clinical position at Valais Hospital after the hospital found “irregularities in the management of nephrology department and hemodialysis funds,” the Swiss media is reporting.
That must have been what happened to a quintet of authors from Shanghai who’ve just had to retract an article from the Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. Here’s the notice
(sadly, behind a paywall) [see note at end of post] for “Role of clofazimine in the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: a retrospective observational cohort assessment:” Read the rest of this entry »
The authors of a recent paper in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology on nut intake and the risk of high blood pressure and diabetes have pulled their article from publication for an undisclosed conflict of interest.
Now, you wouldn’t know this unless you were willing to pony up the $32 to read the notice, which is behind a pay wall — something that drives us, well, nuts. But here it is: