Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category
Authors of a 2016 cancer paper have retracted it after finding an error in one line of code in the program used to calculate some of the results. Reposting as our subscription software appears to be acting up again. Read the whole post here.
Weekend reads: World’s most prolific peer reviewer; replication backlash carries on; controversial PACE study re-analyzed
The week at Retraction Watch featured news of a fine for a doctor who took part in a controversial fake trial, and a likely unprecedented call for retraction by the U.S. FDA commissioner. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Read the rest of this entry »
A journal has removed a paper after realizing it contained a verbatim quote from a patient that could reveal the patient’s identity. Reposting as our subscription software appears to be acting up again. Read the whole post here.
Ioannidis: We have “massive production of unnecessary, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses”
Reposting this as our email alerts seem to be down again. Read full post here.
John Ioannidis, a professor at Stanford University and one of the most highly cited researchers in the world, has come up with some startling figures about meta-analyses. His new paper, published today in Milbank Quarterly (accompanied by this commentary), suggests that the number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in literature have each increased by more than 2500% since 1991. We asked Ioannidis — who is perhaps most well known for his 2005 paper “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False” (and was featured in a previous Retraction Watch Q&A article) — why such a massive boost these publication types in scholarly literature is potentially harmful.
Retraction Watch: You say that the numbers of systematic reviews and meta-analyses have reached “epidemic proportions,” and that there is currently a “massive production of unnecessary, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses.” Indeed, you note the number of each has risen more than 2500% since 1991, often with more than 20 meta-analyses on the same topic. Why the massive increase, and why is it a problem? Read the rest of this entry »
The retractions come as part of a backstory of pulled papers authored by psychologist Edward Awh and his former graduate student David Anderson when he was based at the University of Oregon in Eugene. The pair retracted four papers last year after Anderson admitted to misconduct during an investigation by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (and spoke to us about it last July). This led Awh — now based at the University of Chicago in Illinois — to take a second look at the other publications he’d co-authored with Anderson; earlier this year, Awh retracted two others, and informed us more would be coming, including the two most recent publications.
We have found another correction for high-profile plant scientist Olivier Voinnet, bringing his total count to 22. Voinnet, who works at ETH Zurich, also has seven retractions, a funding ban, and a revoked award.
Voinnet’s most recent corrections involve problems with figures; the same issue is cited in this latest correction notice, for “Competition for XPO5 binding between Dicer mRNA, pre-miRNA and viral RNA regulates human Dicer levels.”
The correction notice in Nature Structural & Molecular Biology, issued earlier this year, explains:
The paper in question, “Deficient Smad7 expression: A putative molecular defect in scleroderma,” studied the signaling pathways that may underlie the autoimmune disease. It has been cited 198 times, according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science.
The authors, led by Pascal J Goldschmidt-Clermont, currently the Dean of the School of Medicine at the University of Miami, have issued a retraction note, which appeared online yesterday: Read the rest of this entry »
Whenever we see someone step forward and admit their mistakes, along with a clear explanation so others can avoid the same, we applaud them.
Today, our digital hands are clapping for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), whose Marketplace has issued a lengthy explanation for why they reported incorrect results from tests of popular vitamins and supplements.
A paper that compared two gauges of needles to take samples of pancreatic masses has been retracted after authors unintentionally included patients from another trial.
“Randomized Trial Comparing the Flexible 19G and 25G Needles for Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration of Solid Pancreatic Mass Lesions,” published a year ago in Pancreas, notes that:
A total of 100 patients with solid pancreatic mass lesions constituted the study cohort and were randomized equally to the 2 needle groups.
The problem? According to the retraction note, some of those patients weren’t supposed to be included: