Archive for the ‘elsevier’ Category
UT-Southwestern cancer research group notches ninth retraction
A research team at the University of Texas-Southwestern that has retracted eight papers for image manipulation has retracted another, this one in Lung Cancer.
Here’s the notice for “Aberrant methylation of Reprimo in lung cancer,” published by Adi Gazdar’s group: Read the rest of this entry »
Bitter rheumatology authorship dispute ends in retraction
A 2012 expression of concern prompted by an authorship dispute has been upgraded to a retraction.
As we reported in 2012, Revista Brasiliera de Reumatologia (aka the Brazilian Journal of Rheumatology) issued an expression of concern about “Anticitrullinated peptide antibodies and rheumatoid factor in Sudanese patients with Leishmania donovani infection” after
a claim from one of the authors, questioning the authorship of the corresponding author, and informed that the article was under submission to another journal.
The journal sought the advice of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and continued its investigation. That investigation is apparently now complete, and this retraction notice is the result: Read the rest of this entry »
Diabetes researcher Cory Toth up to seven retractions
A University of Calgary diabetes researcher, Cory Toth, who told us earlier this year that he would cease publishing in the scientific literature, has two more retractions, making seven.
Both appear in Neurobiology of Disease. Here’s the notice for “Differential impact of diabetes and hypertension in the brain: Adverse effects in white matter:”
Read the rest of this entry »
Boeing engineer has two papers retracted for duplication
The editor of the Journal of Sound and Vibration has retracted two papers by a Boeing engineer because the author reused his previous work.
Here’s the notice for “A component-based model for aircraft landing gear noise prediction,” by Yueping Guo: Read the rest of this entry »
Authors of three retracted PLOS ONE papers to retract four more, with one researcher resigning
The hits keep coming for a research group at the Institute of Microbial Technology (IMTECH) in Chandigarh, India.
Last week, we reported that PLoS ONE was retracting three papers by the research group because “there are no data available underlying this study and thus…the published results are fabricated.” Now, according to The Hindu, four more papers are being retracted:
Read the rest of this entry »
Misconduct prompts retraction of prostatectomy paper
A group of urologists in China has lost their 2012 paper in the Journal of Surgical Research because one of the authors was evidently rather naughty.
The article, “Is the impact of the extent of lymphadenectomy in radical prostatectomy related to the disease risk? A single center prospective study,” purported to show that: Read the rest of this entry »
Botany journal retracts paper for “at least” one error
The South African Journal of Botany has retracted a 2012 paper that claimed a variety of herbal extracts have antioxidant and anti-fungal properties, due to errors in “at least” one figure.
Here’s the notice for “Contribution of herbal principles towards cytoprotective, antioxidant and anti-Rhizopus activities:”
Bad spreadsheet merge kills depression paper, quick fix resurrects it
The authors of a paper showing a link between immune response and depression requested a retraction after they realized they’d merged two spreadsheets with mismatching ID codes.
Here’s the notice for “Lower CSF interleukin-6 predicts future depression in a population-based sample of older women followed for 17 years,” retracted in February 2014:
Geneticist retracting four papers for “significant problems”
Benjamin Barré, a genetics researcher who recently set up his own group at the University of Angers, is retracting four papers he worked on as a graduate student and postdoc.
Neil Perkins, in whose lab Barré was a postdoc, and Olivier Coqueret, in whose lab he did his PhD, tell Retraction Watch: Read the rest of this entry »
Republished Seralini GMO-rat study was not peer-reviewed, says editor
In our coverage Tuesday of the republication of the controversial retracted study of GMOs and rats by Gilles Seralini and colleagues, we wrote this about a strange passage in an editor’s note on the paper:
The republished study was peer-reviewed, according to the press materials, and Seralini confirmed that it was in an email to Retraction Watch. But we were curious what “any kind of appraisal of the paper’s content should not be connoted” meant. We asked Seralini and the editor of Environmental Sciences Europe, Henner Hollert, but neither responded.
Hollert has responded to the same question from Nature, which reports: Read the rest of this entry »
