About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Archive for the ‘physics retractions’ Category

Enthusiastic retraction and retracted correction mark loss of researcher’s fourth and fifth papers

with 2 comments

IJMPBHere’s a physics retraction whose use of an exclamation point — the only one we’ve ever seen in a retraction notice! — makes the editors’ exasperation palpable.

It’s also the the fourth retraction for R. K. Singhal, of the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, India. Behold the notice for “Magnetic behavior of functionally modified spinel Ni0.4Ca0.6Fe2O4 nanoferrite,” in the International Journal of Modern Physics B: Read the rest of this entry »

About these ads

Hydrogen journal pulls palladium paper for data misuse

leave a comment »

intjhydrogenenergyThe International Journal of Hydrogen Energy is retracting a 2013 article for what appears to be the misappropriation of data.

The paper,  titled “Hydrogen production by an anaerobic photocatalytic reforming using palladium nanoparticle on boron and nitrogen doped TiO2 catalysts,” was written by researchers from the Veltech Dr RR & Dr SR Technical University, in Chennai, India, and Arizona State University.

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

Editorial mix-up leads to duplication, retraction of physics paper

with one comment

A missed withdrawal request has led to doubled up publication and a later retraction for Brazilian physicists, through no fault of their own.

Atmospheric Plasma Treatment of Carbon Fibers for Enhancement of Their Adhesion Properties” was presented at an Institute of Physics (IOP) conference in 2010. The proceedings weren’t published until May 2014.

In the meantime, the plasma scientists withdrew their paper from consideration and submitted it to IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, where it was published in February 2013. Unfortunately, in the four year delay between the conference and the Institute of Physics publication, the withdrawal request got lost.

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

Written by Cat Ferguson

July 21, 2014 at 11:30 am

Recursive plagiarism? Researchers may have published a duplicate of a study retracted for plagiarism

with 15 comments

acta physica sinicaSometimes plagiarism, like an onion, has layers.

That appears to be the case in a paper brought to our attention by sharp-eyed reader Vladimir Baulin, whose work was copied in a 2006 paper that Journal of Biological Physics retracted for plagiarism.

But you can’t keep a good thief down: the plagiarizing authors just popped up in a new journal with a Chinese-language version of their retracted paper, that looks an awful lot like a knock-off. Here’s a note from Baulin: Read the rest of this entry »

Physicists with retraction for a “pattern that was unphysical” lose another for manipulation

with 9 comments

journal of applied physicsIn September, we wrote about the retraction of a physics paper for “a pattern that was unphysical.”

The team, whose first author, R.K. Singhal refused to sign the notice, has had another paper retracted, this one in the Journal of Applied Physics. Here’s the notice for “Study of electronic structure and magnetization correlations in hydrogenated and vacuum annealed Ni doped ZnO:” Read the rest of this entry »

Twinkle, twinkle little star, how I wonder where you went: Astronomy report retracted

with 7 comments

nasaA group of physicists has retracted their preliminary report in the GCN Circular of a massive star-sized explosion after deciding that what they’d really observed was another phenomenon.

Although we could try to explain this, we’d rather leave it up to Giacomo Vianello, an experimental physicist at Stanford University, who was a member of the research team.

Vianello told us: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by amarcus41

June 17, 2014 at 9:30 am

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 »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 34,408 other followers