About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Archive for the ‘crystallography retractions’ Category

Doing the right thing: Authors retract protein paper after finding experimental errors

with 11 comments

embo reportsA group of researchers in the Netherlands has retracted a paper once they realized that the findings weren’t reproducible and that there had been an error in the experiments.

Here’s the notice for “Ubiquitin‐specific protease 4 is inhibited by its ubiquitin‐like domain,” by MP Luna‐Vargas, AC Faesen, WJ van Dijk, M Rape, A Fish, and TK Sixma: Read the rest of this entry »

About these ads

Written by ivanoransky

January 10, 2014 at 12:30 pm

A partial retraction appears for former Salzburg crystallographer who admitted misconduct

with 8 comments

j imm april 2013A paper by a crystallographer fired from his university for misconduct has been partially retracted.

Last year, we covered the case of Robert Schwarzenbacher, formerly of Salzburg University. Schwarzenbacher had provided the crystallographic data for a paper in the Journal of Immunology, but those results raised questions with another crystallographer and prompted an investigation by the university.  Schwarzenbacher admitted he’d committed misconduct, although he recanted at one point, and was eventually fired.

Now, the authors have retracted the crystallographic data from the Journal of Immunology paper. Here’s the partial retraction, which is listed as a correction:
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 »

Protein structure retracted after investigation into “highly improbable features,” journal calls it fraud

with 14 comments

In 2010, a group of crystallographers immunologists and allergy researchers at the University of Salzburg published a paper in the Journal of Immunology claiming to have derived the structure of a birch pollen allergen.

That structure, however, caught the attention of Bernhard Rupp, an eminent crystallographer. In January of this year, Rupp submitted a paper to Acta Crystallographica Section F pointing out problems with it, which prompted the editors of the crystallography journal to contact the authors of the original paper a month later. Those authors, it turns out, agreed with Rupp, they write in a response to his paper published in the April 2012 issue of Acta Crystallographica Section F: Read the rest of this entry »

PNAS retraction marks second for crystallography group

with 22 comments

Two crystallographers who retracted a Structure paper last year have retracted a study about a similar subject in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, for similar reasons.

Here’s the notice for the paper, which has been cited 23 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by ivanoransky

January 26, 2012 at 9:30 am

Crystal myth: 11 more retractions from crystallography journal after 2010 fakery

with 4 comments

About a year ago, Acta Crystallographica Section E issued a bombshell editorial. The journal was pulling 70 papers from two groups of researchers at the same Chinese university after discovering that the structures they reported had been fakes.

As the editorial explained, the fraud was detected during a routine review of the structures by Ton Spek, of Utrecht University in The Netherlands. According to the editorial: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by amarcus41

February 28, 2011 at 11:00 am

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 31,393 other followers