About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Archive for the ‘behind a paywall’ Category

New method sinks newish paper…or does it?

with 4 comments

cover_2009_BB_viz_biomassThe timing on a recent retraction of a paper from Biotechnology and Bioengineering makes it a bit difficult to figure out what happened, but here’s a try.

An article first published online May 16th by a group of researchers at Brown University was retracted on June 1st, apparently because a new and better method for analyzing the data was developed…at some point.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”:

Read the rest of this entry »

About these ads

Mega-correction appears for Florida leadership scholar Walumbwa following six retractions

with 3 comments

Fred Walumbwa, via FIU

Fred Walumbwa, via FIU

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:

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Adam Marcus

July 30, 2014 at 11:00 am

Incorrect analysis leads to Nature’s sixth retraction in 2014

with 5 comments

nature 714In what seems to be an example of researchers swiftly and transparently correcting the literature, and acknowledging errors, a pair of scientists have retracted a 2013 paper from Nature.

Here’s the retraction notice for “Genomic organization of human transcription initiation complexes,” by Bryan Venters and Frank Pugh: Read the rest of this entry »

Recursive plagiarism? Researchers may have published a duplicate of a study retracted for plagiarism

with 15 comments

acta physica sinicaSometimes plagiarism, like an onion, has layers.

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 »

“Error in data compilation” leaves bitter taste for paper on sweeter-tasting pills

with one comment

A publication on a new, tastier dissolving tablet has been retracted for data errors. Here’s the brief notice for “Meloxicam Taste-Masked Oral Disintegrating Tablet with Dissolution Enhanced by Ion Exchange Resins and Cyclodextrin“: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Cat Ferguson

July 15, 2014 at 10:13 am

If only more retractions could be like this: Authors of cardiac stem cell paper show the way

with 6 comments

Researchers at Qingdao University have fully retracted a paper originally published in Molecular Medicine Reports with a clear, detailed outline of what went wrong and how they discovered the error.

Here’s the notice for “Generation of induced pluripotent stem cells using skin fibroblasts from patients with myocardial infarction under feeder-free conditions:”

Read the rest of this entry »

Retractions arrive in plagiarism scandal involving economist Nijkamp

with 92 comments

nijkampRetractions have arrived in the case of Peter Nijkamp, a leading Dutch economist accused of duplication and plagiarism. The Review of Economic Analysis has removed two of Nijkamp’s articles for self-plagiarism.

According to the NRC Handelsblad website (courtesy of Google translate):

The affair university economics professor Peter Nijkamp and his PhD student Karima Kourtit has escalated. The editors of the journal Review of Economic Analysis (RoEA) appears to have withdrawn because of self-plagiarism two scientific articles (reuse your own work earlier without acknowledgment), NRC Handelsblad discovered last week at the RoEA website.

The website reports that “significant parts” of the reclusive articles have appeared in other publications Nijkamp and Nijkamp / Kourtit, without reference orderlyearlier. It involves work Nijkamp alone and work of VU economist Frank Bruinsma with Nijkamp and Kourtit.

Read the rest of this entry »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 34,511 other followers