About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Archive for the ‘plagiarism’ Category

Publisher to pulp existing copies of science communication book because of plagiarism

with 2 comments

speight bookThe publisher Taylor & Francis has decided to pulp all existing copies of a 2012 book on science communication, and suspend electronic copies indefinitely, after it became clear that the text was plagiarized from the work of another author.

The book, Clear and Concise Communications for Scientists and Engineers, was written by energy and environmental consultant James G. Speight. According to Colin Purrington — the creator of a very popular poster tips site whose past attempts to protect his intellectual property may be familiar to Retraction Watch readers — pages 166-169 are “largely copied” from Purrington’s page on scientific poster design.

In a letter to Taylor & Francis, Purrington wrote:

Read the rest of this entry »

About these ads

Written by ivanoransky

April 17, 2014 at 3:13 pm

Integrity of data “undisputed” in paper pulled for plagiarism

with one comment

ijpharI shot the sheriff
But I didn’t shoot no deputy, oh no! Oh!
I shot the sheriff
But I didn’t shoot no deputy, ooh, ooh, oo-ooh.

—Bob Marley

A group of pharmacologists in Japan has retracted their 2012 article in the International Journal of Pharmaceutics for plagiarism. But not, they note, for any other reason.

The article, “Suppression of efflux transporters in the intestines of endotoxin-treated rats,” came from researchers in the Department of Drug Absorption and Pharmacokinetics in the School of Pharmacy at Tokyo University of Pharmacy and Life Sciences. It has been cited once, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by amarcus41

April 16, 2014 at 11:30 am

Waseda University checking dissertations for plagiarism in wake of STAP stem cell misconduct finding

with 14 comments

wasedaWaseda University in Japan says it will be vetting every doctoral dissertation it awards its graduate-level students in Advanced Science & Engineering* for signs of plagiarism, according to a report in the Japan News, a site of the Yomiuri Shimbun. The paper reports that:

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by amarcus41

April 8, 2014 at 11:30 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

Late resveratrol researcher Dipak Das up to 20 retractions

with 2 comments

Das, via UConn

Das, via UConn

Dipak Das, the former University of Connecticut researcher found to have committed more than 100 counts of misconduct, and who passed away last year, has had another retraction appear.

Here’s the notice, for “Dynamic Action of Carotenoids in Cardioprotection and Maintenance of Cardiac Health,” from Molecules:

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by ivanoransky

March 27, 2014 at 9:10 am

Scholar in Sweden appears to face inquiry for plagiarism retraction

with 2 comments

njmrThe Nordic Journal of Migration Research has retracted a 2012 paper by a Swedish researcher who lifted text from another author.

The article, “Swedish Employers and Trade Unions, Varieties of Capitalism and Labour Migration Policies,” was written by Jesper Johansson, of Linnaeus University in Växjö. It’s available as a PDF here, but not on the website of the publisher, De Gruyter — nor is it listed on Johnansson’s own site.

We chose a sentence a random from the abstract:

Read the rest of this entry »

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 ivanoransky

March 26, 2014 at 9:30 am

Reverse peristalsis for gut journal which disgorges Cleveland Clinic paper for plagiarism

with 3 comments

ajg_cimageThe American Journal of Gastroenterology has retracted a 2011 article on colon cancer by a group of Cleveland Clinic researchers after finding “evidence” of plagiarism in the text.

The article, a review, was titled “Molecular Pathways Underlying IBD-Associated Colorectal Neoplasia: Therapeutic Implications,” and has been cited 16 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

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

Written by amarcus41

March 12, 2014 at 1:38 pm

Plagiarism makes renewable energy paper unsustainable

leave a comment »

rserHere’s a lesson for would-be authors of papers on power supplies:

Energy = Renewable; Journal articles = Not renewable

Too late for a group of engineers in Iran who borrowed too liberally from previously published work in their 2013 article in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews.

The paper, “A review of energy storage systems in microgrids with wind turbines,” reported that: Read the rest of this entry »

Doing the right thing: Journal clears unknowing author of plagiarism

with 2 comments

ausjforsciHere’s a nice case of a journal taking pains to clear the name of an author.

Last summer we wrote about a case of plagiarism involving two authors from India who’d published a paper on biometrics in the Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences.

Now — seven months later, we’ll note — one of those authors has gotten a reprieve. A notice in the journal states that the researcher had nothing to do with the misconduct.

At the time, the notice for the paper, “Multiple facial soft biometrics for person identification system,” read: Read the rest of this entry »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 31,144 other followers