About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Archive for the ‘unhelpful retraction notices’ Category

Psychiatric Times reinstates retracted essay on “satanic ritual abuse”

with 3 comments

psych timesLast month, we brought readers the story of a retraction in December from Psychiatric Times, of an essay by Richard Noll that included this passage:

Despite the discomfort it brings, we owe it to the current generation of clinicians to remember that an elite minority within the American psychiatric profession played a small but ultimately decisive role in the cultural validation, and then reduction, of the Satanism moral panic between 1988 and 1994. Indeed, what can we all learn from American psychiatry’s involvement in the moral panic?

That essay was republished on March 19, along with an editor’s note:

Read the rest of this entry »

About these ads

Written by ivanoransky

March 25, 2014 at 9:30 am

Why was that lung cancer paper retracted? The “authors’ reason,” of course

leave a comment »

jthordisTwo researchers who wrote a review article on the genetics of lung cancer have retracted the paper. But why evidently is for them to know and us to find out.

The article, “Epigenetic aberrant methylation of tumor suppressor genes in small cell lung cancer,” was published in the August 2013 issue of the Journal of Thoracic Disease by authors from Shandong University in China.

According to the retraction notice: Read the rest of this entry »

Pharmaceutical journal retracts antibiotics paper with dodgy data, with an unclear notice

with one comment

aapsAAPS PharmSciTech, a journal of the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists, has retracted a 2013 paper by a group from India. The reason appears to be manipulated data, although the wording of the notice leaves that open to interpretation.

The article, “Design and Formulation Technique of a Novel Drug Delivery System for Azithromycin and Its Anti-Bacterial Activity Against Staphylococcus aureus,” was written by a trio of researchers at the Center for Nanobiotechnology at VIT University in Vellore.

The article, published online in June, purported to find that: Read the rest of this entry »

Psychiatric Times retracts essay on “satanic ritual abuse”

with 14 comments

psych timesSome Retraction Watch readers may recall this episode, recounted in a recent op-ed by Lew Powell:

During the 1980s and early ’90s a wave of nonexistent “satanic ritual abuse” claims shut down scores of day cares such as Little Rascals, McMartin in California and Fells Acres in Massachusetts. In virtually every instance the charges lacked any basis in fact. Today no reputable psychologist or other social scientist will argue otherwise. The defendants were innocent victims of a “moral panic” that bore striking similarities to the Salem witch hunts 300 years earlier.

Psychologist Richard Noll found the charges troubling too, so he wrote a piece last year for Psychiatric Times because: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by ivanoransky

February 13, 2014 at 11:30 am

A first? Dental journal retracts three papers because authors didn’t pay publication charges

with 41 comments

dmj_33_1Dental Materials Journal has retracted three papers by different groups of authors for “violation of our publishing policies and procedures” — which turns out to be a polite way of saying “they wouldn’t pay our fees.”

The articles are: Read the rest of this entry »

This retraction stinks: Authors pull paper on pig gas

with 8 comments

ajasHere’s a stinky retraction.

The authors of a 2006 article in the Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences have yanked the paper — without an explanation.

The article, titled “Effectiveness of Lactobacillus plantarum strain KJ-10311 to remove characteristic Malodorous gases in piggery slurry,” came from J. D. Kim and K. M. Park. Kim appears to be a member of the journal’s editorial board, which perhaps explains why the authors were able to get away with this retraction notice: Read the rest of this entry »

Journal grounds paper on radiation exposure in air traffic controllers because it was “published inadvertently”

with 3 comments

indjoccenvtmedThe Indian Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine has retracted a 2013 article by a pair of researchers who’d claimed to find that air traffic controllers suffer poor health from exposure to microwave radiation. But that turns out to have been an, um, flight of fancy.

The article, “Adverse health effects of occupational exposure to radiofrequency radiation in airport surveillance radar operators,” was written by Naser Dehghan and Shahram Taeb, both of Shiraz University in Iran. According to the abstract:

Quickest withdrawal ever? Journal yanks paper alleging 800K deaths from Poldermans affair

with 9 comments

ehj Just 48 hours after publishing an article by Graham Cole and Darrel Francis last week alleging that Don Poldermans‘ scientific misconduct led to the deaths of some 800,000 Europeans over the past five years by tainting clinical guidelines, the European Heart Journal unceremoniously pulled the paper from its website Friday.

Larry Husten at CardioBrief has been on top of the story. According to Husten: Read the rest of this entry »

Author who threatened to sue Retraction Watch has another paper withdrawn

with 30 comments

cureusBenjamin Jacob Hayempour, the researcher who threatened to sue us for asking questions about a retraction for plagiarism, has had another paper withdrawn.

The paper, published online in the journal Cureus, was titled “Novel Determinants of Tumour Radiosensitivity Post-Large-Scale Compound Library Screening” and had been available at http://www.cureus.com/articles/2394-novel-determinants-of-tumour-radiosensitivity-post-large-scale-compound-library-screening since January 13, but that URL now redirects to Cureus’s homepage.

We asked Cureus editor-in-chief John Adler for details, and he responded: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by ivanoransky

January 17, 2014 at 5:14 pm

Journal editor defends retraction of GMO-rats study while authors reveal some of paper’s history

with 44 comments

food and chemical toxicologyThe debate over the retraction of a highly controversial paper on the effects of GMOs on rats continues unabated. This week, Adriane Fugh-Berman and Thomas Sherman wrote on the Hastings Center website that Read the rest of this entry »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 31,216 other followers