Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Archive for the ‘for legal reasons’ Category

Lead poisoning article disappears for “legal” — but mysterious — reasons

without comments

OM_ak4A 2014 article in Occupational Medicine has been pulled with no retraction notice. Instead, the text was replaced with eight ominous words:

This article has been removed for legal reasons

Read the rest of this entry »

Drug company lawyer letter results in “utterly tedious” retraction

with 2 comments

Image via Intropen

Image via Intropen

What’s in a name?

Well, if it’s the same name as a treatment with nearly $1 billion in sales per year in the U.S., a retraction.

A “mind numbingly boring one,” that is.

Here’s the Twin Research and Human Genetics notice for “EpiPen: An R Package to Investigate Two-Locus Epistatic Models”: Read the rest of this entry »

Retraction of letter alleging sock puppetry now cites “legal reasons”

with 10 comments

jasistEarlier this month, we brought you the story of a retraction from the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology involving rivalry and alleged sock puppetry. The author of the now-retracted letter, physicist Lorenzo Iorio, claimed that another researcher was using fake names to criticize his work on arXiv.At the time, the editor of the journal had told everyone concerned that the letter would be retracted, but the retraction notice hadn’t yet appeared. Now it has.

Here’s the notice: Read the rest of this entry »

Crystal unclear? “Business decision” forces retraction of silicon paper

with one comment

jcgrowthA group of researchers in Tokyo has lost their 2013 article in the Journal of Crystal Growth over commercial interests — which don’t appear to be their own.

We’ll explain.

The article, “Interactions between planar defects in bulk 3C-SiC,” came from a team consisting of a researcher at Keio University and scientists at two companies, HOYA Corporation, an optics firm, and SICOXS Corporation, which makes semiconductor wafers.

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

Co-author of retracted conspiracy ideation-climate skepticism paper addresses apparent contradictions

with 86 comments



We — and others — have been scratching our heads about the real reasons for the formal retraction on March 21 of a Frontiers in Psychology paper since the journal issued a statement on the subject on Friday that seemed to contradict the retraction notice and that certainly differed from accounts on some blogs. Today, we learned a few more details about what happened in the year between when the paper was provisionally removed and then formally retracted from a post by Stephan Lewandowsky, one of the co-authors of the paper.

The March 21 statement, writes Lewandowsky, Read the rest of this entry »

Controversial paper linking conspiracy ideation to climate change skepticism formally retracted

with 106 comments

frontiersA year after being clumsily removed from the web following complaints, a controversial paper about “the possible role of conspiracist ideation in the rejection of science” is being retracted.

The paper, “Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation,” was authored by Stephan Lewandowsky, John Cook, Klaus Oberauer, and Michael Marriott, and published in Frontiers in Psychology: Personality Science and Individual Differences.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ivan Oransky

March 21st, 2014 at 7:54 am

Paper by Bristol-Myers Squibb researchers retracted for “unsolved legal reasons”

with 3 comments

applied micro biotechA group of researchers at Bristol-Myers Squibb has had a paper retracted for reasons we can’t quite figure out.

All the notice for “Simultaneous expression of antibody light and heavy chains in Pichia pastoris: improving retransformation outcome by linearizing vector at a different site,” published in Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, says is: Read the rest of this entry »

“Unsolved legal reasons” cause retraction of two biophysics papers

with 6 comments

eur biophys jEvery now and then, we see retraction notices that refer vaguely to legal issues. Sometimes, we can dig up the actual reason. But the European Biophysics Journal has two retractions that leave us completely in the dark.

The two notices basically say the same thing. Here’s one: Read the rest of this entry »

Loose lips sink paper on company’s experimental pain drug

without comments

A bit of intellectual property indiscretion has led to the retraction of a paper by Korean scientists. Although the details are fuzzy, several of the authors are affiliated with a Korean pharma company called SK.

The paper, “A Novel Carbamoyloxy Arylalkanoyl Arylpiperazine Compound (SKL-NP) Inhibits Hyperpolarization-Activated Cyclic Nucleotide-Gated (HCN) Channel Currents in Rat Dorsal Root Ganglion Neurons,” was published in the The Korean Journal of Physiology & Pharmacology earlier this year.

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

Surgery journal issues Expression of Concern when institution can’t confirm case study details “for legal reasons”

with 2 comments

The editors of the World Journal of Emergency Surgery have published an Expression of Concern about a paper after they couldn’t verify one of the three case reports in it.

Here’s the notice for “Necrotizing fasciitis: literature review of contemporary strategies for diagnosing and management with three case reports: torso, abdominal wall, upper and lower limbs,” by surgeons from Split and Zagreb, Croatia: Read the rest of this entry »