About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Archive for the ‘society journal retractions’ Category

Authors retract PNAS paper questioned on PubPeer after original films can’t be found

with 26 comments

pnas31912PubPeer leads the way again: The authors of a paper about Parkinson’s disease in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) have retracted it, several months after a commenter highlighted the exact issue that led to the article’s demise.

The paper, originally published in September 2013, was called into question by a commenter on PubPeer in July 2014, who identified two of the paper’s figures as duplications: Read the rest of this entry »

About these ads

Written by Cat Ferguson

October 23, 2014 at 10:30 am

“This situation left me ashamed and infuriated with myself:” Scientist retracts two papers

with one comment

j bacteriologyA Portuguese group has retracted two papers in the Journal of Bacteriology after mislabeled computer files led to the wrong images being used.

And, we’ve learned in a heartfelt email, the first author was devastated.

Here’s the notice for “MtvR Is a Global Small Noncoding Regulatory RNA in Burkholderia cenocepacia”: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Cat Ferguson

October 17, 2014 at 12:00 pm

Authors retract HER-2 endometrial cancer paper for 2x publication

with 4 comments

OGSFile this one under strange excuses.

A cancer paper was retracted on September 17 for a double publication. According to the notice in which the authors admit to duplicating the “opening to the readers,” which we assume is the introduction, there was no need to cite the article “because it had not yet been printed at that time.”

Here’s the notice for “The effect of HER-2 polymorphism according to age on the risk and pathologic feature of endometrial cancer”: Read the rest of this entry »

Notice fails to get to the heart of cardiology retraction

with 5 comments

cmjThis one is a little odd.

A cardiology paper from China has been retracted because “permission to report these discussions was not sought nor obtained,” though it’s unclear what “the discussions” refers to. The person to whom the discussions are attributed to in the retraction, Ji Bingyang, is not an author on the paper, and none of his papers are cited in the retracted article.

Here’s the notice in the Chinese Medical Journal for “A novel rat model of cardiopulmonary bypass for deep hypothermic circulatory arrest without blood priming”:
Read the rest of this entry »

Hmm: Authors retract paper rather than allow discussion of politics of organ donation in China

with 20 comments

transplantationOrgan donation in China, particularly the practice of using organs from executed prisoners, which the government pledged to stop by the middle of this year, has been a controversial subject. For a group of authors in that country and the U.S, a letter criticizing their work that introduced “the political situation of organ donation in China” was cause to retract their own paper.

Here’s the notice in question from Transplantation, for a study published three months ago: Read the rest of this entry »

CrossFit to be tied: Fitness company sues journal to retract “sloppy and scientifically unreliable work”

with 14 comments

Lawsuits are usually dry and boring, so it’s always fun to read one with a little life.

Here’s one of those: CrossFit, the fitness program famous for its brief, strenuous exercises and passionate devotees, is suing the National Strength and Conditioning Association (NCSA), which it considers its staid competitor for the nation’s sweat and cash.

According to CrossFit, the NSCA published a study with a “falsified rate of injury,” “in an effort to portray CrossFit as ‘dangerous’ and therefore a fitness program that should be avoided.”

No matter that the study, published in NSCA’s official research journal, the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Researchconcluded overall that CrossFit is a useful form of exercise. The suit says that the authors fudged a few statistics about participants’ injuries. Here’s the relevant section from the paper, titled “Crossfit-based high-intensity power training improves maximal aerobic fitness and body composition:”

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Cat Ferguson

July 10, 2014 at 9:30 am

Serbian journal lands in hot water after challenge on 24 hour peer review that cost 1785 euros

with 17 comments

naslovna1This story began as a report of a one-off case of potential predatory practice last month, and has escalated to an official call to disband an entire international editorial board, and an accusation against the editor of mass-scale nepotism and other publishing misconduct.

The journal, Archives of Biological Sciences (ABS) is the official publication of the Serbian Biological Society, co-published by ten organisations in Serbia and Bosnia. It was accused (on June 12) on the Scholarly Open Access blog of accepting a paper in 24 hours with no peer review, and demanding 1785 euros for publishing it. Read the rest of this entry »

Written by micotatalovic

July 7, 2014 at 8:30 am

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 35,982 other followers