Archive for the ‘misused data’ Category
The paper, “GREB1 Functions as a Growth Promoter and Is Modulated by IL6/STAT3 in Breast Cancer,” came from a team composed of researchers at the Morehouse School of Medicine, Xavier University of Louisiana and the University of Miami School of Medicine. It purported to find that: Read the rest of this entry »
A group of researchers in Singapore has lost two 2013 articles in BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care for problems with their data.
One of the articles was titled “Patients with Dysphagia: Encounters in Taking Medication;” the other, “Issues Associated with Delirium Severity Among Older Patients.” In both cases, the first and second authors were Rajaram S and Chua HC, of Khoo Teck Puat Hospital.
The Journal of Biological Chemistry has an illuminating retraction notice — we’re happy to be able to say — about a 2001 article from a group of researchers at the National University of Singapore.
The paper, “Intracellular acidification triggered by mitochondrial-derived hydrogen peroxide is an effector mechanism for drug-induced apoptosis in tumor cells,” was written by Jayshree L. Hirpara, Marie-Véronique Clément and Shazib Pervaiz.
The article, “Health of Home-Based Sex Workers and their Children in Rural Andhra Pradesh, India,” appeared in Asian Population Studies and was written by Monique M. Hennink and Solveig A. Cunningham, both of the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University in Atlanta.
Journal reveals real reason for retraction of paper by author who threatened to sue Retraction Watch
Last week, we reported on the retraction of a paper by Benjamin Jacob Hayempour, a researcher who had threatened to sue us last month for even reporting on another of his retractions.
The journal, Cureus, told us at the time that the retraction — in which the article disappeared, without a notice — didn’t have anything to do with fraud or plagiarism. Hayempour said that “In the pursuit of excellent science, I personally withdrew the article temporarily in order to add an extra section which will make the paper more clinically relevant.”
But we now have the whole story, which reads a bit differently. According to a comment left on our post by journal editor-in-chief John Adler, it was intellectual property issues that forced the retraction: Read the rest of this entry »