About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Archive for the ‘elsevier’ Category

Will journal finally retract fraudulent paper 10 months after an official request?

leave a comment »

ChemosphereElsevier journal Chemosphere may finally retract a paper it learned contained fabricated data in January when a member of the author’s institution requested the paper be retracted.

The paper has been cited at least once since the lies came to light, as we reported earlier this month.

The journal contacted the relevant parties on October 29 with the following email about “Degradation of 2,4-dinitroanisole (DNAN) by metabolic cooperative activity of Pseudomonas sp. strain FK357andRhodococcus imtechensis strain RKJ300,” although no notice has been posted: Read the rest of this entry »

About these ads

Written by Cat Ferguson

October 30, 2014 at 11:30 am

Structure error sinks NIH-MIT-SNU peptide paper

leave a comment »

CHBIOL_21_9.c1.inddA mistake in structure identification has sunk a paper by researchers at the NIH, MIT, and Seoul National University in the Cell Press journal Chemistry and Biology.

Here’s the notice for “Peptide-Based Inhibitors of Plk1 Polo-box Domain Containing Mono-anionic Phosphothreonine Esters and Their Pivaloyloxymethyl Prodrugs”: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Cat Ferguson

October 29, 2014 at 11:30 am

“Our real intention was to emphasize, not plagiarize”

with one comment

joms.13692132This one’s not a retraction, but rather a back and forth of letters to the editor concerning accusations of plagiarism.

Dentists Bryan and Paul Jacobs, a father and son team, wrote a paper describing a novel surgical technique in March 2013. In October 2013, several Croatian dentists published their own paper using the technique.

A year later, the story has gotten a little more interesting. The November issue of the Journal of Oral and Mixillofacial Surgery, which published the second article, has two letters. One, from the Jacobses, accuses the Croatian authors of plagiarism. The second is a response from author Dragana Gabrić Pandurić, claiming “our real intention was to emphasize, not plagiarize, their work.”

Here’s the letter from Bryan and Paul Jacobs (paywalled): Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Cat Ferguson

October 27, 2014 at 9:30 am

Journal expresses concerns over “possible data irregularities” in paper from Army medical center docs

with 2 comments

JAADThe Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology has issued an expression of concern about a 2012 article reporting the experience of military burn unit treating a rare ailment called toxic epidermal necrolysis.

According to the notice, which is behind a paywall (for shame!), the paper appears to have overstated the number of cases the hospital itself has treated of the life-threatening condition: Read the rest of this entry »

U. Illinois chancellor earns mega-correction for duplicate publication

with 49 comments

Phyllis Wise, from University of Illinois

Phyllis Wise, via University of Illinois

Phyllis Wise, the chancellor of the University of Illinois and an obstetrics researcher, has called for a massive correction of a 2006 paper in Neuroscience for work she appears to have tried to pass off as having been previously unpublished — but which wasn’t.

The article, “Estrogen therapy: Does it help or hurt the adult and aging brain? Insights derived from animal models,” has been cited 47 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

And it had caught also the attention of readers on PubPeer, who noted that: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Adam Marcus

October 9, 2014 at 9:30 am

Oops: Elsevier journal publishes paper citing paper it promised to retract two months ago

with 6 comments

elsevierJournal publishers can be agonizingly slow when it comes to officially retracting a paper.

Here’s a prime example of the consequences of that bureaucratic foot-dragging: Ten months after being told that Fazlurrahman Khan had fabricated his data, and two months after announcing two of Khan’s papers would be retracted from two of its journals, Elsevier still has not retracted either paper.

Worse, at least one of the papers, “Degradation of 2,4-dinitroanisole (DNAN) by metabolic cooperative activity of Pseudomonas sp. strain FK357 and Rhodococcus imtechensis strain RKJ300,” in the journal Chemosphere, has been cited since the announcement was made. In fact, the paper was published in Journal of Hazardous Materials, the Elsevier journal that is dragging its feet retracting another of Khan’s papers, “Aerobic degradation of 4-nitroaniline (4-NA) via novel degradation intermediates by Rhodococcus sp. strain FK48.”

Jim Spain, in whose lab Khan worked at Georgia Tech, reached out to us to express his concerns with this timeline: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Cat Ferguson

October 3, 2014 at 9:30 am

Double dipping on trial data topples 17-year-old macular degeneration article

with one comment

redjournalThe authors of a 1997 paper on macular degeneration have lost the article after readers noticed uncanny similarities with a 1996 publication from several of the same authors.

The retracted article, “Radiation therapy for macular degeneration: Technical considerations and preliminary results,” appeared in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics – otherwise known as the “Red Journal.” The first author, Luther W. Brady, is a leading U.S. oncologist.

According to the retraction notice: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Adam Marcus

October 1, 2014 at 11:30 am


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 35,983 other followers