Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Archive for the ‘urban planning’ Category

Data dispute forces journal to pull paper about rare bird on valuable land

with 2 comments

coverThe authors of a paper about the density of an endangered bird on valuable Texas lands are disputing the journal’s decision to pull the paper after other scientists objected to some of its contents.

The paper, published online in August by the Journal of Field Ornithology, compared different models for estimating the number of golden-cheeked warblers that nest in Texas. According to the Austin American-Statesman, some of that land includes highly sought-after woodlands. Developers had used estimates from recent years, which suggested that the bird population was in relatively good health, to petition to open that land for real estate development. But the new paper concluded that those estimates were too high.

After some scientists who produced the more rosy estimates claimed that the some of their data had been included in the newest paper without permission, the editor in chief decided to retract it.

That was in November. There’s no retraction note for “Density influences accuracy of model-based estimates for a forest songbird.” We contacted the editor in chief, Gary Ritchison, to ask why. He told us,

Read the rest of this entry »

Paper cited by New York Times for key stat gets retracted

without comments

the-new-york-times-logoA paper that had served as the key aspect of an April New York Times article about a recent surge of violence against immigrants in South Africa has since been retracted for plagiarism.

The research, which appeared in the Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, had served as the source of the newspaper’s statement that the country is “home to about five million immigrants.” That figure was later quoted in other media outlets about the issue.

However, a 2011 census put the number closer to 2.2 million immigrants, according to the non-profit fact-checking organization Africa Check. After issuing a report about the discrepancy, which also quotes experts who say the numbers are unlikely to have doubled by 2015, Africa Check contacted the Times. As Africa Check reports:

Read the rest of this entry »

Paper on vulvar tumor retracted. Why? Journal won’t say

without comments

JLGTCancer of the vulva may well be a topic most people do not want to discuss. But we wish the Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease (the official journal of several societies, including the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, the Australian Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology and the Society of Canadian Colposcopists) had been a bit more forthcoming about its retraction of a 2013 paper on the subject.

The article, “Granular Cell Tumor of the Vulva,” appeared in the January issue of the journal from a group whose last last author was Sofia Vázquez Navarrete, a pathologist at La Línea de la Concepción, in Cádiz, Spain.

Its abstract stated: Read the rest of this entry »

Mean streets: Expert on lying accuses planning association of ethical lapses

with 4 comments

citiescoverA U.K. urban planner and self-styled expert on “truth and lying” has launched a forceful attack on the ethics of a key trade association, accusing it of refusing to promote his work for fear that the findings might be damaging to the profession.

And what, you’re asking, does this have to do with retractions? Trust us. This story’s harder to follow than a New Jersey left turn ramp — but we think you’ll enjoy it.

As a road map, here are a few key players in the drama:
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by amarcus41

February 19th, 2013 at 1:00 pm