About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Archive for the ‘cell press’ Category

Anonymous blog comment suggests lack of confidentiality in peer review — and plays role in a new paper

with 39 comments

neuronA new paper in Intelligence is offering some, well, intel into the peer review process at one prestigious neuroscience journal.

The new paper is about another paper, a December 2012 study, “Fractionating Human Intelligence,” published in Neuron by Adam Hampshire and colleagues in December 2012. The Neuron study has been cited 16 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

Richard Haier and colleagues write in Intelligence that Read the rest of this entry »

About these ads

Written by ivanoransky

April 14, 2014 at 11:30 am

Utrecht University finds “violation of academic integrity” by former researcher

with 24 comments


Pankaj Dhonukshe

We have an update on the case of Pankaj Dhonukshe, a scientist about whom we reported in November. Utrecht University has found that Dhonukshe, a former researcher at the Dutch university, committed “a violation of academic integrity” in work that led to a number of papers, including one published in Nature and once since retracted from Cell.

Here’s the university’s statement: Read the rest of this entry »

Misconduct at Oxford prompts retraction of insulin paper

with 7 comments

cellmetabcoverCell Metabolism has retracted a 2006 article by a group of researchers at Oxford in England after an investigation concluded that the first author had committed misconduct.

The paper, “Nicotinamide nucleotide transhydrogenase: A key role in insulin secretion,” came from the lab of Frances Ashcroft, a world-renowned expert on ion channels. (We’ve written about Ashcroft’s lab before.)

According to the abstract: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by amarcus41

February 5, 2014 at 10:32 am

Cell update: Co-corresponding author let go from Belgian university; retraction notice language changed

with 28 comments

cell november 2013We’ve learned more about the circumstances behind a Cell retraction that we covered last week.

First, one of the two corresponding authors left the institution where he most recently worked. Belgium’s VIB Ghent told us that Pankaj Dhonukshe was no longer employed there and said: Read the rest of this entry »

Authors retract Cell paper amid ongoing investigation

with 22 comments

cell november 2013The authors of a 2012 paper in Cell have retracted it after discovering “serious issues with several figures.”

Here’s the notice for “A PLETHORA-Auxin Transcription Module Controls Cell Division Plane Rotation through MAP65 and CLASP:” Read the rest of this entry »

Nature yanks controversial genetics paper whose co-author was found dead in lab in 2012

with 14 comments

naturecover1113Nature has retracted a controversial 2012 paper by a group from Johns Hopkins University which has been the subject of a protracted public dispute.

The article, “Functional dissection of lysine deacetylases reveals that HDAC1 and p300 regulate AMPK,” came from the lab of Jef Boeke,  a celebrated biochemist. But a former lab member, Daniel Yuan, who was fired by Hopkins in late 2011 after 10 years at the institution, had repeatedly raised questions about the validity of the findings. Those concerns eventually made their way into the Washington Post, prompting this response from the university. Read the rest of this entry »

Data artifact claims two fruit fly papers from leading UK group — who offer model response

with 4 comments

jcbcoverA team of researchers led by Daniel St. Johnston, director of the Gurdon Institute at Cambridge and a prominent developmental biologist in the UK, has lost a pair of articles after finding that their data were unreliable. But rather than “correct” the record with subsequent papers, they’ve withdrawn the problematic work.

To our mind, this is a poster case of doing the right thing by science. We think the notices — as provided by the authors and reported by the journals — pretty much say it all, so we’ll let them speak for themselves, followed by some details St. Johnston shared with us.

The first article, “LKB1 and AMPK maintain epithelial cell polarity under energetic stress,” appeared in 2007 in the Journal of Cell Biology and has been cited 108 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

According to the retraction notice:

Read the rest of this entry »

A Cancer Cell mega-correction for highly cited researcher who retracted paper earlier this year

with 31 comments

cancer cell 9-13MIT’s Robert Weinberg, a leading cancer researcher who retracted a Cancer Cell paper earlier this year for “inappropriate presentation” of figures, has corrected a different paper in the same journal.

Here’s the correction for “Species- and Cell Type-Specific Requirements for Cellular Transformation:”

We were apprised recently of errors made in the assembly of Figures 2B, 3A, 4A, 4B, and 5G, resulting in the incorporation of incorrect representative images in these figures. These errors occurred during the electronic assembly and have no bearing on the conclusions of the study. The corrected figures are shown below. The authors apologize for any possible confusion this might have caused.

Here’s the original Figure 2 and caption, followed by the new version (read all the way to the end of the post for more details on how this came to light): Read the rest of this entry »

Written by ivanoransky

September 12, 2013 at 9:30 am

Retraction appears for Harvard scientist who had two mega-corrections last year

with 117 comments

molecular cellSam Lee, a Harvard biologist who had two mega-corrections published last year, has retracted a paper in Molecular Cell because some of the figures were “inappropriately assembled.”

Here’s the notice for “GAMT, a p53-Inducible Modulator of Apoptosis, Is Critical for the Adaptive Response to Nutrient Stress:” Read the rest of this entry »

Written by ivanoransky

August 23, 2013 at 8:30 am

Cell reviewing allegations of image reuse in human embryonic stem cell cloning paper

with 69 comments

cell cloningCell is looking into whether the authors of a widely hailed study published last week claiming to have turned human skin cells into embryonic stem cells manipulated images inappropriately, Retraction Watch has learned.

The potential image problems came to light on PubPeer, a site designed to allow for post-publication peer review. A commenter, identified as Peer1, identified “several examples of image reuse which might be of interest to PubPeer members and readers:” Read the rest of this entry »

Written by ivanoransky

May 22, 2013 at 12:59 pm


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 31,393 other followers