Archive for the ‘corrections’ Category
All three papers share a number of authors, including the same last and corresponding author, Aimin Xu, from The University of Hong Kong.
Since the corrections appear relatively extensive, we asked the journal if retractions were ever on the table. According to Chris Kohler, associate publisher, scholarly journals at American Diabetes Association, which publishes Diabetes, an ethical panel reviewed the papers before allowing the authors to issue the errata, all of which were published online this month: Read the rest of this entry »
A California court ruled that fitness empire CrossFit can proceed to trial with its lawsuit against a competitor, alleging it published falsified data that hurt the company’s reputation, according to recently released court documents.
The case pits the popular for-profit CrossFit brand against the non-profit National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA), which published the 2013 study in question.
CrossFit claims it lost upwards of $8 million afer researchers concluded that 16 percent of CrossFit participants in a small study left the exercise program because of injury. However, in a 2015 erratum, the authors – led by Steven T. Devor, director of the Exercise Science Laboratory at The Ohio State University — noted that follow up showed only 2 participants out of the 11 drop-outs mentioned their health as a reason.
The study appeared in the Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, published by CrossFit competitor NSCA, which also promotes fitness programs. CrossFit claims the results in the paper cost it revenues from people paying for seminars at CrossFit, Inc. affiliate gyms.
“CrossFit is now eager to go to trial. More eager than ever,” a CrossFit spokesperson told Retraction Watch: Read the rest of this entry »
Last author José G. Castaño told us the manipulation occurred at the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, where he and one other co-author are based. He declined to name who was responsible.
Here’s the retraction notice for “Cytomegalovirus promoter up-regulation is the major cause of increased protein levels of unstable reporter proteins after treatment of living cells with proteasome inhibitors:”
Author lifts from one paper in two different articles. Why does one journal retract, while the other corrects?
Are there instances when similarities between papers should be fixed by a correction, rather than a retraction?
We’re asking ourselves that question after seeing two journals take very different approaches to a somewhat similar situation. Last year, Frontiers in Physiology retracted a paper by Anastasios Lymperopoulos at Nova Southeastern University in Florida because of an “an unacceptable level of similarity” to a 2009 review article by different authors. But more recently, after Circulation Research discovered another paper co-authored by Lymperopoulos also contained similar text from the same 2009 review, it decided to correct the passages.
The last author of the Circulation Research paper told us the overlap between the two papers was less than 5%, and the journal never suggested the authors retract the paper.
Here’s the correction notice in Circulation Research:
A prominent researcher in Scotland has been suspended amidst a misconduct investigation at the University of Dundee.
As the outlet reports: Read the rest of this entry »
Last year, we reported on an investigation by the University of Colorado Denver into the research of Rajendra Kadam, which recommended retracting 10 papers. The report also flagged eight additional papers co-authored by Kadam whose data could not be validated, raising “concerns as to the scientific validity and integrity” of the material. A few months later, we reported on some of the notices — four retractions and an EOC — that had begun to appear for Kadam’s manuscripts.
We’ve since discovered more notices, bringing his total to seven retractions and three EOCs.
Kadam was once a prominent member in the lab of Uday Kompella, and often referred to by colleagues as the “golden boy,” according to the institution’s report. In 2012, he won a graduate student symposium award from the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists.
A University of Colorado Denver spokesperson told Retraction Watch: Read the rest of this entry »
Federal judges in Ohio have dismissed two lawsuits claiming that university researchers used false results to secure more than $250 million in federal grants.
Both lawsuits, which objected to a study examining the effects of CrossFit-based training, were filed by Mitchell Potterf, the owner of a gym affiliated with CrossFit in Columbus, Ohio. Potterf took issue with a 2013 study by researchers at Ohio State University (OSU) that was conducted at his gym.
Potterf filed one suit against the OSU researchers and a second against the National Strength and Conditioning Association (NCSA). The NSCA publishes the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, where a paper about the study appeared. The article, “Crossfit-based high-intensity power training improves maximal aerobic fitness and body composition,” has been cited 15 times, according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science.
The study followed 43 men and women as they completed 10 weeks of CrossFit-based training. In addition to those 43 participants, 11 dropped out before completing the regimen. According to the original paper: Read the rest of this entry »
Cell will not be issuing corrections for three papers co-authored by prominent plant biologist Olivier Voinnet, after readers on PubPeer raised questions about some of the images.
The news may be a welcome relief for Voinnet, based at ETH Zurich in Switzerland, who has recently issued 22 corrections and seven retractions. Ongoing questions about his work have also earned him a three-year funding ban, and caused the European Molecular Biology Organization to revoke an award.
On July 28, Cell published editorial notes for all three papers, which have been collectively cited more than 1000 times (also reported by Leonid Schneider). The notes say that the journal will take “no further action,” noting that the authors of the papers informed Cell of the problems with figures, which do not appear to compromise the papers’ overall validity.
The moves against the researcher, Thorsten Hagemann, come after investigations by the General Medical Council, akin to a U.S. state medical board, and Hagemann’s former institution, Queen Mary University of London (QMUL), turned up evidence of misconduct. In June, we reported on the retraction of a meeting abstract in The Journal of Pathology and the corrigendum of a Nature paper by Hagemann following the inquiry at QMUL.
When a high-profile psychologist reviewed her newly published paper in PLOS ONE, she was dismayed to notice multiple formatting errors.
So she contacted the journal to find out what had gone wrong, especially since checking the page proofs would have spotted the problem immediately. The authors were surprised to learn that it was against the journal’s policy to provide authors page proofs. Could this partly explain PLOS ONE’s high rate of corrections?
Issuing frequent corrections isn’t necessarily a bad thing, since it can indicate that the journal is responsive to fixing published articles. But the rate of corrections at PLOS ONE is notably high. Read the rest of this entry »