About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Archive for the ‘springer retractions’ Category

Ethics training paper retracted because data couldn’t be shared

with 10 comments

sci eng ethicsA group of authors at the University of Oklahoma have retracted a 2013 paper on ethics training after the university found that the data they used couldn’t be shared publicly.

Here’s the notice for “Improving Case-Based Ethics Training: How Modeling Behaviors and Forecasting Influence Effectiveness:” Read the rest of this entry »

About these ads

Written by Ivan Oransky

April 25, 2014 at 11:00 am

Springer fake paper tally up to 18

with 5 comments

Written by Ivan Oransky

April 21, 2014 at 11:30 am

NIH/Harvard team loses aging study to manipulated data

with 14 comments

agecoverAge has retracted a 2012 article by a group of scientists from the National Institutes of Health and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston after an NIH inquiry turned up evidence of data manipulation in the work.

The article, “Aging decreases rate of docosahexaenoic acid synthesis-secretion from circulating unesterified α-linolenic acid by rat liver,” came from the lab of Stanley Rapoport, chief of the brain physiology and metabolism section of the National Institute on Aging.

As the abstract explained: Read the rest of this entry »

Pain study retracted for bogus data is second withdrawal for University of Calgary group

with 10 comments

molpainBack in January 2013, we wrote about the retraction of a paper in Diabetes that the authors had “submitted without knowledge of inherent errors or abnormalities that they recognized in retrospect after submission.”

Now, Molecular Pain has retracted a paper by the same authors, this time for data manipulation. The article, “Comparison of central versus peripheral delivery of pregabalin in neuropathic pain states,” was written by Cory Toth, a clinical neuroscientist at the University of Calgary, in Canada, and colleagues. It has been cited eight times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

Toth said of the Diabetes article at the time:
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by amarcus41

April 7, 2014 at 11:00 am

Do you see what I see? Heart imaging journal yanks cardiac study for plagiarism

with one comment

intjcardimagThe International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging has retracted a 2013 paper by a group of researchers from Italy. The reason: plagiarism.

The paper was titled “Diagnostic accuracy of 320-row computed tomography as compared with invasive coronary angiography in unselected, consecutive patients with suspected coronary artery disease,” and it came from scientists in Rome led by Francesco Pelliccia of the Department of Heart and Great Vessels at Sapienza University.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by amarcus41

April 4, 2014 at 11:00 am

“Unable to dispel the doubts,” authors lose protein structure paper

with 11 comments

ebjA suggestion: If you’re going to use the words “overestimated accuracy” in the title of your paper, you’d better make sure you aren’t guilty of the same yourself.

A group of authors in China has lost their June 2013 paper in the European Biophysics Journal because they appear to have misinterpreted their data.  The paper, “Overestimated accuracy of circular dichroism in determining protein secondary structure,” came from chemists at Fudan University in Shanghai, and purported to find that:

Read the rest of this entry »

A matter of degree: M. Theol loses a paper

with 13 comments

jreghealthEvidently the editors of the Journal of Religion and Health were a tad distracted when they published a paper earlier this year by Australian theologian Joseph Lee and his “colleague,” M. Theol.

M. Theol, of course, is a degree, not a person — as a correction notice explains:

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by amarcus41

March 26, 2014 at 11:00 am

Pro tip: Don’t use “facts and fiction” in your title if you plan to plagiarize

with 10 comments

ijpedsHere’s a suggestion: If you’re going to plagiarize someone else’s work, don’t draw attention to it by including “fiction” in your title.

That lesson was brought home to us by a recent retraction in the Italian Journal of Pediatrics for “Infantile colic, facts and fiction:”

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ivan Oransky

March 26, 2014 at 9:30 am

Want to make sure your paper gets published? Just do your own peer review like this researcher did

with 2 comments

env managementWe’ve reported on some pretty impressive cases of researchers doing their own peer review, one of which led to 28 retractions. We have another.

Yongdeng Lei, of the School of Geography and Remote Sensing Science at Beijing Normal University, pulled the wool over the eyes of two Springer journals. Here’s the notice from Environmental Management for “Typhoon Disasters and Adaptive Governance in Guangdong, China:” Read the rest of this entry »

“Critical data” errors force retraction of vision paper

leave a comment »

jjophthalA group of authors in Korea has lost their 2013 paper on treating vision loss after one of the two cases they’d reported turned out to have been fatally flawed.

The paper, “Isolated central retinal artery occlusion as an initial presentation of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria and successful long-term prevention of systemic thrombosis with eculizumab,” had appeared in the Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology.

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

Written by amarcus41

March 7, 2014 at 9:30 am

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 33,693 other followers