Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Archive for the ‘physics retractions’ Category

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 17th, 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 »

Journal retracts letter accusing physicist of using fake names to criticize papers

with 13 comments

jasistFrom the world of physics, we have a retraction involving rivalry and alleged sock puppetry. The Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology has removed a letter from its website after a scientist complained that it was making unproven allegations against him.

It’s a head-scratching case. The letter, from Lorenzo Iorio, first appeared in the journal on April 28. Here’s how Neuroskeptic describes the background: Read the rest of this entry »

Did article on doped indium contain a doped image?

with 6 comments

asscoverApplied Surface Science has retracted a 2010 paper by a group of researchers from India and Brazil because one of the figures in the article was suspect.

The paper was titled “Effect of hydrogenation vs. re-heating on intrinsic magnetization of Co doped In2O3.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Doing the right thing: Physicists retract paper after becoming aware of “a fundamental error”

with 2 comments

prl-bannerThe authors of a paper in Physical Review Letters have retracted it, after another researcher pointed out a mistake.

F. Sattin and D.F. Escande write in the notice for “Alfvénic Propagation: A Key to Nonlocal Effects in Magnetized Plasmas” (which is behind a paywall) that after the paper was published, they “we became aware of a fundamental error in the normalization of our equations.” Excerpt: Read the rest of this entry »

Duplication in physics journal questions key tenet of quantum mechanics

with 2 comments

cmpHere’s a physics question: How is it possible to be in two places at the same time?

Answer: Submit the same manuscript twice and hope the editors forget to feed Schrödinger’s cat.

The journal Condensed Matter Physics is retracting a 2013 paper by a Ukrainian scientist who’d published essentially the same paper seven years earlier.The article was titled “On the origin of power-law distributions in systems with constrained phase space,” and was written by an E.V. Vakarin, of the Institute for Condensed Matter Physics, in Lviv UMR 7575 LECA ENSCP-UPMC-CNRS.

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

Doing the right thing: Authors retract lubricant paper whose findings they can’t reproduce

with one comment

wearcoverThe journal Wear — an Elsevier title, not a Condé Nast fashion magazine — has retracted a paper by a pair of Chinese physicists after the researchers were unable to replicate their findings.

The 2009 article, “Microstructure and tribological characterizations of Ni based self-lubricating coating,” was written by authors from the MOE Key Laboratory for Nonequilibrium Synthesis and Modulation of Condensed Matter and the MOE Key Laboratory for Strength and Vibration at Jiaotong University, in Xi’an. It purported to find that: Read the rest of this entry »

Seeing triple: Optics paper proves to be one of three, retracted

with 12 comments

joptA team of physicists has lost their 2013 paper in the Journal of Optics after the publisher learned that the article had already appeared in print twice before.

The article, “Inscription of narrow bandwidth Bragg gratings in polymer optical fibers,” came from researchers at the Instituto de Telecomunicacoes, in Portugal, and the Aston Institute of Photonic Technologies, in Birmingham, England. Per the abstract: Read the rest of this entry »

“Complete copies” earn physicists in Malaysia a pair of retractions

with 4 comments

pramanaThe physics journal Pramana — a publication of the Indian Academy of Sciences — has retracted two studies by a group of researchers in Malaysia who appear to have cobbled together their papers from other sources.

The 2007 articles came from A.R.M. Yusoff, M.N. Syahrul and K. Henkel, of the University Science Malaysia, in Penang. One was titled “High resolution transmission electron microscope studies of a-Si:H solar cells,” and the other, “Hydrogenated nanocrystalline silicon germanium thin films.” The retraction notices are identical, and read: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by amarcus41

January 24th, 2014 at 12:08 pm