Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Help us: Here’s some of what we’re working on

with 82 comments

With something like 500-600 retractions per year, and a constant flurry of publishing news to keep up with, our small staff stays busy – and can’t always immediately post on every new retraction that we discover. We’ve created this page to show you some of what’s on our current to-do list. If you have any tips for us about the nature of a retraction, expression of concern, or correction you see here — or know of any other retractions by the same authors — please let us know in a comment. Note: Once we’ve posted about a retraction, we’ll bump it down to the bottom of the list.

Like Retraction Watch? Consider making a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post, or subscribe to our new daily digest. Click here to review our Comments Policy.

Written by Alison McCook

March 14th, 2016 at 1:54 pm

Posted in

Comments
  • Conrad Seitz MD March 15, 2016 at 5:32 pm

    Good idea. Let us, your readers, know when you see something on your radar that you don’t have time to do a full post on– then we can tell you early on what we know or suspect… like a distant early warning system, only more fun.

    • Richard David Feinman June 25, 2016 at 10:23 am

      I did have time to do a post on my blog: http://bit.ly/1Utx6pk
      I also explain why I didn’t want to pursue it…but that was then. Things are getting worse.
      The field of nutrition is surely the most fertile for your work.

  • Neuroskeptic March 15, 2016 at 5:55 pm

    Re: “Why money meanings matter in decisions to donate time and money”, this was retracted following Hal Pashler et al.’s querying aspects of the data in Study #3 (out of 3 in the paper.)

    The authors denied wrongdoing. They requested a partial retraction of Study #3 however on the grounds of unspecified “coding errors” in the dataset. The editor of Marketing Matters decided to retract the whole paper, however.

    My blog post with links & my additional analysis of the problematic data is here.

    The case is related to the social psychology replication crisis because the paper was about a form of social priming, aka ‘money priming’.

  • herr doktor bimler March 15, 2016 at 11:22 pm

    If you have any tips for us about the nature of a retraction, expression of concern, or correction you see here

    Will you accept suggestions for bad puns to use in the post titles?

    • Tom Spears January 4, 2017 at 6:11 pm

      Dear Doktor, there are no bad puns.

      • herr doktor bimler January 4, 2017 at 7:50 pm

        I hope this is not just a parody comment, designed to embarrass a predatory publisher!

  • vnn March 16, 2016 at 9:46 am

    Recent retraction of a vietnamese physicist, Vo Van Vien (V. V. Vien), in 2015: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13538-015-0360-9
    PS: Please do not show my email.

  • bill March 20, 2016 at 1:41 pm

    More retractions/corrections by Duke pulmonary group in Journal of Immunology from 3/1

  • anonymous March 21, 2016 at 7:41 pm

    A famous statistician had a paper retracted at a top journal: http://biomet.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/01/22/biomet.asv053.1.short?rss=1

  • Paul Fisher April 11, 2016 at 12:14 pm

    Here is a link to a correction of a major political science paper “http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajps.12216/full” for making a error in the data meaning.

  • Christine Carson April 13, 2016 at 10:25 am

    What’s going on with this paper about sugar? How long does it take to correct the record? And if it is not going to be corrected by the authors, should it be retracted?
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-13/the-australian-paradox:-experts-hit-out-at-sydney-uni-study/7319518

  • Marco April 14, 2016 at 3:38 am

    Don’t ask me how, but I noticed that there is a PubMed-like system in Korea, and it has an intriguingly long list of retractions of which several have not (yet?) been handled by RW, I think:
    http://www.koreamed.org/SearchBasic.php?QY=%22Retraction+of+Publication%22+%5BPT%5D&DisplaySearchResult=1&DC=200
    I did note that the retractions for Park and Choung (17 and 10,) have been discussed at RW in the past.

  • Harriet Sugar Miller April 14, 2016 at 9:44 am

    Let them eat bacon? What’s the best article you’ve read evaluating in depth that 2014 Chowdhury meta-analysis allegedly exonerating saturated fats? Thanks to Retraction Watch for tipping us off to all the critiques, including from Harvard’s School of Public Health.

  • fernandopessoa April 30, 2016 at 12:51 pm
  • Dr. Sceptic May 6, 2016 at 3:52 am

    Two recent corrections from Karolinska Institute/Harvard researchers in JCB and Genes Dev. As noted in pubpeer, one of the authors on these papers have multiple additional papers flagged for image duplications (see link)

    https://pubpeer.com/publications/0C87023FB977DE6466928C0C79A0A0?utm_source=Chrome&utm_medium=ChromeExtension&utm_campaign=Extensions

  • Marco May 6, 2016 at 6:55 am

    I am intrigued by this retraction:
    http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JWARP_2016011913562480.pdf
    which just says “Since authors have their personal reasons, they have to withdraw this paper from Journal of Water Resource and Protection.”

  • Marco May 6, 2016 at 7:03 am

    Less intriguing, several retractions for Bruno Amato because of significant overlap and adding co-authors who did not qualify:
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12893-016-0140-7
    http://bmcsurg.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12893-016-0138-1
    http://bmcsurg.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2482-15-2
    Amato also has a retraction for overlap alone:
    http://bmcsurg.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12893-016-0141-6

  • JT May 9, 2016 at 8:31 pm

    There is a retraction in the May 9 issue of Developmental Cell in which the first author admitted to falsifying the data that formed the basis of three figures and one supplemental figure:
    http://www.cell.com/developmental-cell/fulltext/S1534-5807%2816%2930233-7

  • RMP May 10, 2016 at 8:58 pm

    Retraction dated 13 April 2016:

    http://www.nature.com/uidfinder/10.1038/nature17648

    Original paper:
    https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature14090

    Reported here: http://ria.ru/science/20160510/1430323610.html (Russian; translation: https://z5h64q92x9.net/proxy_u/ru-en.ru/ria.ru/science/20160510/1430323610.html) that the international group led by Prof. Igor Abrikosov found a mistake in the calculations. This mistake is acknowledged in the retraction notice.

  • RMP May 10, 2016 at 9:16 pm

    (At least) a couple of retractions from InTech journals and books are reported here, but they have a somewhat longer list: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=retracted+site%3Aintechopen.com

  • Stephen Wood May 11, 2016 at 4:18 pm

    Have suggestion for an article: Most of the retractions/mega corrections lately seem to be due to image irregularities, especially on Pub Peer. There seems to be a script these authors follows which INVARIABLY states that the image problems don’t change the analysis or the conclusions of the paper…..if that is true then we should be seeing many of the retracted papers re-published with the same findings and different images…..Is this in fact really occurring?

  • Jens Olaf Pedersen May 12, 2016 at 11:48 am

    How do you treat coauthors of a retracted paper? Some of the authors of retracted papers have been very generous by inviting coauthors on their papers.

  • YK May 16, 2016 at 12:38 pm

    Retraction of a paper stolen verbatim from another one:
    http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/isprsarchives-XL-2-W2-179-2013

    The authors are a consortium behind an EU funded project. It would be useful to check if the funder are aware of the plagiarism.

  • Teresa May 16, 2016 at 9:36 pm

    Not actually a retraction (just a correction) but seems like maybe it should be…
    http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/05/11/0956797616650144.full
    “the raw data are not extant [so we can’t check whether the p-value is correct]”

  • rtr June 10, 2016 at 12:16 am
  • R3 June 26, 2016 at 5:42 pm

    Another retraction for this group. Same reasons as before.

    http://www.prd-journal.com/article/S1353-8020%2816%2930189-4/abstract

  • Crow July 1, 2016 at 12:29 am

    “The following article from Anaesthesia, ‘Safety of cardiac surgery without blood transfusion: a retrospective study in
    Jehovah’s Witness patients’, by El Azab SR, Vrakking R, Verhage [sic] G and Rosseel PMJ, published online in Wiley
    Online Library (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2044.2009.06232.x/full) on 17 March 2010 and in
    Volume 65, Number 4, pages 348-52, has been retracted by agreement between three of the named authors
    (R Vrakking, G Verhaegh and PMJ Rosseel), the Journal Editor-in-Chief, Steve Yentis, and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
    The retraction has been agreed following confirmation by the Amphia Hospital Ethics Committee that the study did not
    have ethical approval as claimed. In addition, the article was written and submitted without the knowledge or consent of
    R Vrakking, G Verhaegh and PMJ Rosseel. It has not been possible to obtain a response from the corresponding author
    SR El Azab.”

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2044.2009.06232.x/pdf

  • ohman July 1, 2016 at 9:36 am

    New retraction from CEBP (hope I didn’t miss it in your archives or in other commenters’ comments). The first paragraphs of the retraction notice are provided below.

    ‘The article titled, “Confounding of the association between radiation exposure from CT scans and risk of leukemia and brain tumors by cancer susceptibility syndromes,” which was published in the January 2016 issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention (1), is being retracted at the request of the authors.

    The authors recently reported analytical errors that drastically change the published article conclusions.’

    http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/25/7/1192?etoc

  • Klaas van Dijk July 6, 2016 at 10:19 am

    An Expression of Concern referring to a paper on the breeding biology of the Basra Reed Warbler has been published on 5 July 2016 at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09397140.2016.1208389

    “We have been informed of a question of the reliability and validity of the data reported in the above work. We note that the data described in this article have not been independently verified, and we recommend that readers take this into account when reading the paper or performing further work based on this study.”

    See https://pubpeer.com/publications/CBDA623DED06FB48B659B631BA69E7

  • Einar Flydal August 5, 2016 at 2:05 pm

    Regarding your posting on 22. March “A big mistake:” Paper about the dangers of Wi-Fi pulled for plagiarism”, http://retractionwatch.com/2016/03/22/a-big-mistake-paper-about-the-dangers-of-wi-fi-pulled-for-plagiarism/: Your readers might be interested to know that the paper has been corrected and is now out again. See http://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/reveh.ahead-of-print/reveh-2016-0011/reveh-2016-0011.xml.
    Only formalities, not substance, have been corrected, as formalities only were behind the withdrawal.
    The scepticism – not to mention outright prejudice and suspicion thrown at the authors behind the paper – did indeed concern their findings, views and conclusions – but in their previous works and without any concrete evidence.
    It seems your site might function as a mocking stick were the mob or adversaries too easily might kling their enemies, and even get a hat tip for it.

  • Marco August 8, 2016 at 8:57 am

    Any plans to discuss the case of Christian Kreipke? Lots of interesting stuff there, with only very recently a retraction, despite Kreipke already fired in 2012 for alleged misconduct.
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mvr.2016.07.003
    There are also several lawsuits related to Kreipke’s case.

  • anonymous August 22, 2016 at 11:23 am

    Any future plans to report on this paper and the 100’s of studies it will affect? Should all of those be retracted?

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hbm.23342/full

  • Anna P September 9, 2016 at 7:22 pm

    Here’s the statement (in Swedish) issued on Sept. 9 from the Swedish Central Ethics Review Board concerning Sjöqvist et al (e.g. Paolo Macchiarini) “Experimental orthotopic transplantation of a tissue-engineered oesophagus in rats from Nature Communications 5 Article number: 3562 (2014) http://www.epn.se/media/2375/o-1-2016-expertgruppens-yttrande-160906.pdf
    Basically, the board states that the data that they have been able to review (though much raw data was missing due to poor laboratory practices and lack of compliance with established research protocols) in no way supports the conclusions in the article, thus concluding that the article constitutes research fraud. In addition, the board states that the rats were so emaciated that ethical considerations clearly should have lead the researchers to interrupt the experiment. There will be disciplinary actions from the K.I. towards the researchers (though the senior researcher (e.g. Macchiarini…) received the harshest criticism).
    The review board were asked to assess the article by the Karolinska Institute in May.
    As an alumna of the medical school at the Karolinska Institute (and someone who did research there for my PhD) I am saddened and embarrassed, though not entirely surprised, by the university’s administration and the way it has handled the whole sordid Macchiarini affair (which lead some commentators to call Karolinska “the Chernobyl of ethics”…).

  • Stephen Foote September 14, 2016 at 5:11 am

    For some time i have been trying to raise an issue with scientists in physiology, about an apparent contradiction in a range of papers about the restriction of a particular tissue growth. So far i can find no one in the field or general physiology who is willing to comment on this.

    It is a basic rule in scientific studies, to take into account the recognised factors of influence in the field. Otherwise the study is not valid and can be misleading. In the case of studies into the restriction of tissue growth in-vivo, any recognised growth restricting factor must be taken into account. However in this particular area of study, one very basic growth restricting factor has been consistently overlooked.

    This factor is the basic spatial growth controls that all normal tissue growth is subject to in-vivo. If there is a degree of resistance to new tissue growth from the surrounding tissue, this new growth is switched off. http://phys.org/news/2014-04-room-tissue-growth-cell-response.html

    Hair follicles go through a cycle of regression and re-enlargement within the dermal tissue, and scientists seek to find the cause of the restricted growth of follicles in cases of hair loss. Yet there is no reference in any of the current studies to the resistance of the dermal tissue, and the recognised spatial growth controls.

    I suggest that once these controls are factored into the known data in the field, a lot of the mystery disappears. There are also wider implications to this connection in evolution, and some serious diseases. I discuss this in my article here.

    https://www.academia.edu/17570665/A_Review_of_the_issues_in_Historic_and_Current_Hair_Research_and_an_Overlooked_Connection.

    The current studies into hair follicle growth restriction, continue to ignore spatial growth controls. So if there is a scientific argument against a central role of spatial growth controls in hair follicle enlargement, i would be interested to hear it?

    Regards.

    Stephen Foote.

  • Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva September 29, 2016 at 11:34 am

    Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants October 2012, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 381-386
    Influencing micropropagation in Clitoria ternatea L. through the manipulation of TDZ levels and use of different explant types
    Seemab Mukhtar 1, Naseem Ahmad 1, Md Imran Khan 1, Mohammad Anis 1,2, Ibrahim M. Aref 2
    1. Plant Biotechnology laboratory, Department of Botany, Aligarh Muslim University, India
    2. Department of Plant Production, College of Food and Agriculture Sciences, King Saud University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12298-012-0136-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s12298-012-0136-4
    https://pubpeer.com/publications/DD7586286AE40608BB1C4C7BA59497

    Retraction (April 2016, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 289–289):
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12298-016-0352-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s12298-016-0352-4
    “The corresponding author retracts this article due to the erroneous inclusion of Table 3 and Fig. 1C from the previously published article by Mukhtar, S., Anis, M., & Ahmad, N.(2010) titled “In vitro optimization of phytohormones on micropropagation in Butterfly pea (Clitoria ternatea L.)” in the Journal of herbs, spices & medicinal plants 16:2, 98–105. The authors regret the error due to oversight and thank the anonymous complainant and the editor of PMBP for bringing it to their notice.”

    Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants 22(3): 423
    Influence of Agrobacterium rhizogenes strains, acitosyringone, inoculum size and temperature on production of active ingredients from Picrorhiza kurrooa
    Janhvi Mishra Rawat, Balwant Rawat, Susmita Mishra, Aakriti Bhandari, Rajneesh K Agnihotri, Anup Chandra
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12298-016-0341-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s12298-016-0341-7

    Retraction:
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12298-016-0341-7
    “The corresponding author withdraws/retracts this article due to the mistaken inclusion of Fig. 1b from our previously 2011 paper in Acta Physiologiae Plantarum entitled “Hairy root culture of Picrorhiza kurrooa Royle ex Benth.: a promising approach for the production of picrotin and picrotoxinin”. The authors accept the mistake and thank the anonymous complainant and the editor of PMBP for bringing it to their notice.”

    Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants 22(3): 425
    Effect of paclobutrazol on photosynthesis and expression of pyrroline-5-carboxylatesynthase in contrasting wheat genotypes under water deficit stress condition
    Sharad Kumar Dwivedi, Santosh Kumar
    Division of Crop Research, ICAR Research complex for Eastern Region, Patna, Bihar, 800 014, India
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12298-016-0343-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s12298-016-0343-5

    Retraction:
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12298-016-0343-5
    “The corresponding author retracts this article published at online first due to the unreliability of findings arising out of inappropriate handling of the photograph at the bottom right panel of Fig. 2. The authors regret the inappropriate image and thank the anonymous complainant at Pubpeer and the editor of PMBP for bringing it to their notice.”

    Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants 22(3): 427
    Expression of a bacterial chitinase (ChiB) gene enhances resistance against E. polygoni induced powdery mildew disease in the transgenic Black gram (Vigna mungo L.) (cv. T9)
    D. K. Das
    Post Graduate Department of Biotechnology, T. M. Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur, India
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12298-016-0344-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s12298-016-0344-4

    Retraction:
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12298-016-0344-4
    “The editors retract this article published at Online First, due to the author’s unethical inclusion of all the figures and tables, as well as paraphrased text from his previously published research articles listed below:
    1. Das, Dilip Kumar, Mrinalini Bhagat, and Sangeeta Shree. “Agrobacterium Mediated Transformation of Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper with Cry1Ac Gene for Insect Resistance.” American Journal of Plant Sciences 7.02 (2016): 316.
    2. Das, Dilip K., N. Shiva Prakash, and Neera Bhalla-Sarin. “An efficient regeneration system of black gram (Vigna mungo L.) through organogenesis.” Plant Science 134.2 (1998): 199-206.
    3. Das, Dilip K., et al. “Improved method of regeneration of black gram (Vigna mungo L.) through liquid culture.” In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology-Plant 38.5 (2002): 456-459.
    4. Das, D. K., and A. Rahman. “Expression of a rice chitinase gene enhances antifungal response in transgenic litchi (cv. Bedana).” Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture (PCTOC) 109.2 (2012): 315-325.
    5. Das, D. K., and A. Rahman. “Expression of a rice chitinase gene (ChiB) enhances antifungal response in transgenic litchi (cv. Bedana).” Current Trends in Biotechnology and Pharmacy 4.3 (2010): 820-833.
    The editors regret that this scientific misconduct escaped the evaluation processes of the journal and thank the complainants and pubpeer for bringing it to their notice. The reviewers of the manuscript and the employer of the author have been alerted of the misconduct.”

  • Klaas van Dijk September 30, 2016 at 7:39 am

    A correction about undisclosed competing interests between Elizabeth Wager, the first author of a PeerJ paper, and Ana Marusic, the Academic Editor of this paper, was published on 14 September 2016.

    Copy/ pasted from https://peerj.com/articles/1154/#correction-1473893775 :

    “This Correction makes clear the existence of links between the Academic Editor (A. Marusic) and the first-named author (E. Wager) that were not disclosed at the time of publication.

    A. Marusic has co-authored a 2013 article (Marusic A, Wager E, Utrobicic A, et al., 2013, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.MR000038/abstract ) with E. Wager and they subsequently worked together on the ensuing Cochrane systematic review. In addition, E. Wager has given unpaid workshops at the department of A Marusic, in Split, Croatia (where E. Wager is an unpaid Visiting Professor).

    In light of these Competing Interests, the Publisher examined the peer-review process for this paper https://peerj.com/articles/1154/reviews/ and does not believe that the peer-review or decision making process was inappropriately compromised.”

    Elizabeth Wager is listed as one of the members of the Board of Directors of the Center for Scientific Integrity, the parent organization of Retraction Watch ( http://retractionwatch.com/the-center-for-scientific-integrity/ ).

  • Toby October 13, 2016 at 5:10 pm

    How often does this happen?

    The authors of this now retracted paper picked results from another paper and presented them as theirs.

    The retracted paper “Clc-2 knockout attenuated experimental temporal lobe epilepsy in mice by tonic inhibition mediated by GABAA receptors” by Yu-Xing Ge, , Xiang-Zhu Tian, published originally in Brain Research Bulletin, Vol 121, March 2016, Pages 209-214.

    The retraction notice reads:

    “After investigation of the original data, experimental procedure and the process of paper submission, the Scientific Integrity Committee of Tongji University concluded that Figure 3A–D, showing voltage–clamp current traces claimed to be representative traces of ClC-2 currents in CA1 pyramidal neurons, were actually the averaged currents from Bergmann glia that the authors had fraudulently copied from Figure 6 in M.B. Hoegg-Beiler, S. Sirisi, T.J. Jentsch, et al. Disrupting MLC1 and GlialCAM and ClC-2 interactions in leukodystrophy entails glial chloride channel dysfunction Nat. Commun., 5 (2014), p. 3475, http://www.nature.com.gate2.inist.fr/ncomms/2014/140319/ncomms4475/full/ncomms4475.html

  • anonymous October 15, 2016 at 7:04 am

    A paper (plant science) in New Phytologist was retracted (oct, 6, 2016) after editorial request. The head director of the institute (ISA, Sophia-Antipolis, France) co-authored the paper.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nph.14225/abstract

  • Rob Siebers November 7, 2016 at 2:16 pm

    Don’t know if you are aware of recent 11 retractions from Tumor Biology. All from same institutions in Iran. All retracted for compromise of peer review and some additionally for plagiarism.

    Retraction Note to: Canine transmissible venereal tumor and seminoma: a cytohistopathology and chemotherapy study of tumors in the growth phase and during regression after chemotherapy.
    Javanbakht J, Pedram B, Taheriyan MR, Khadivar F, Hosseini SH, Abdi FS, Hosseini E, Moloudizargari M, Aghajanshakeri SH, Javaherypour S, Shafiee R, Bidi RE.
    Tumour Biol. 2016 Nov 5.

    Retraction Note to: Improving the diagnosis, treatment, and biology patterns of feline mammary intraepithelial lesions: a potential model for human breast masses with evidence from epidemiologic and cytohistopathologic studies.
    Manesh JY, Shafiee R, Pedram B, Malayeri HZ, Mohajer S, Ahmadi S, Ahmadi S, Javanbakht J, Mokarizadeh A, Khadivar F.
    Tumour Biol. 2016 Nov 5.

    Retraction Note to: Diagnostic procedures for improving of the KIT (CD117) expressed allele burden for the liver metastases from uterus mast cell tumors: prognostic value of the metastatic pattern and tumor biology.
    Hosseini E, Pedram B, Bahrami AM, Touni SR, Malayeri HZ, Mokarizadeh A, Pourzaer M, Pourzaer M, Zehtabian S, Mohajer S, Ahmadi S.
    Tumour Biol. 2016 Nov 5.

    Retraction Note to: Urinary parameters predictive and electrolyte disturbances of cisplatin-induced acute renal associated with cancer as a critical target of the chemotherapeutic agent in patients with solid tumors.
    Pedram B, Moghadam AT, Kamyabi-Moghaddam Z, Mavedati O, Beigi BA, Sharabiyani AK, Dezfuli AB, Khalili S, Bahrami AM, Nasoori A.
    Tumour Biol. 2016 Nov 5.

    Retraction Note to: Expression and prognostic value of the aldehyde dehydrogenase 1 (ALDH1) and N-myc downstream regulated gene 2 (NDRG2) as potential markers in human astrocytomas.
    Goudarzi PK, Mehrabi F, Khoshnood RJ, Bagheri AB, Ahmadi K, Yahaghi E, Abdolhoseinpour H.
    Tumour Biol. 2016 Nov 5.

    Retraction Note to: Tissue expression levels of miR-29b and miR-422a in children, adolescents, and young adults’ age groups and their association with prediction of poor prognosis in human osteosarcoma.
    Bahador R, Taheriazam A, Mirghasemi A, Torkaman A, Shakeri M, Yahaghi E, Goudarzi PK.
    Tumour Biol. 2016 Nov 5.

    Retraction Note to: Downregulation of miR-185 and upregulation of miR-218 expression may be potential diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers of human chondrosarcoma.
    Goudarzi PK, Taheriazam A, Asghari S, Jamshidi M, Shakeri M, Yahaghi E, Mirghasemi A.
    Tumour Biol. 2016 Nov 5.

    Retraction Note to: Downregulation of microRNA-217 and microRNA-646 acts as potential predictor biomarkers in progression, metastasis, and unfavorable prognosis of human osteosarcoma.
    Azam AT, Bahador R, Hesarikia H, Shakeri M, Yeganeh A.
    Tumour Biol. 2016 Nov 5.

    Retraction Note to: Downregulation of miR-148b as biomarker for early detection of hepatocellular carcinoma and may serve as a prognostic marker.
    Ziari K, Zarea M, Gity M, Fayyaz AF, Yahaghi E, Darian EK, Hashemian AM.
    Tumour Biol. 2016 Nov 5.

    Retraction Note to: Clinical significance and expression of the PRSS3 and Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome protein family verprolin-homologous protein 1 for the early detection of epithelial ovarian cancer.
    Azizmohammadi S, Safari A, Seifoleslami M, Rabati RG, Mohammadi M, Yahaghi H, Azizmohammadi S.
    Tumour Biol. 2016 Nov 5.

    Retraction Note to: Evaluation of mRNA expression levels of IL-17A and IL-10 cytokines in cervical cancer.
    Akhavan S, Safari A, Azizmohammadi S, Azizmohammadi S, Aslami M, Yahaghi E, Seifoleslami M.
    Tumour Biol. 2016 Nov 5.

  • anonymous November 10, 2016 at 8:31 pm

    New retraction in Journal of Memory and Language: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749596X16300572
    Retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief.

  • Anonymous November 11, 2016 at 5:18 am
  • Jan November 13, 2016 at 8:36 pm

    http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2016/11/12/2003659095

    Hugest news in taiwan these days, and ongoing, because it involved high ranked professors and some who hold important posts in the government regarding life science funding (similar to NIH)

    almost ALL of professor Kuo’s papers are under scrutiny, and unfortunately multiple have been shown very obvious problems.
    https://pubpeer.com/publications/D51AB97A73597456292C2F15881872#fb110395
    https://pubpeer.com/publications/E92253BD8ED4EE9E5574F8BE07BA82#fb110342
    https://pubpeer.com/publications/18381294

    and several more….

    The paper from Nat Cell Bio (2016) has been retracted , according to the news, but not yet reflected on the journal’s website.
    http://www.nature.com/ncb/journal/v18/n9/full/ncb3395.html

  • RD December 27, 2016 at 6:11 pm

    http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2594725
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001364.pub5/abstract

    Replication of text was identified in the Cochrane Review. This was limited to copying of short phrases and was acknowledged by the authors. The level of text plagiarism was minor and at a level that would be addressed by a correction. The Editor in Chief carried out further investigation into the alleged plagiarism of data, with the co-operation of the review authors, who provided supplementary information in support of their work. The allegations related to the derivation of means and standard deviations of data from some of the included studies. Although the authors acknowledge and cite the Hemilä 2011 review, the Editor in Chief considered that the authors’ explanation regarding some similarities in presented data between the two reviews was not conclusive.

  • herr doktor bimler January 6, 2017 at 3:23 pm

    A recent Withdrawal from Oncotarget:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28030845
    No comment at the journal itself, and indeed no trace of the upublished paper at all.

    Two of the three authors (Finelli and Tarantino) may be familiar to RW readers.
    http://retractionwatch.com/2016/12/12/dear-peer-reviewer-stole-paper-authors-worst-nightmare/

  • IJ February 14, 2017 at 11:29 am

    Retraction of a Malaria vaccine paper from Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645515.2017.1292023

    “This article has been removed due to the study having performed a meta-analysis on separate publications of the same clinical trial.”

  • Joulik February 16, 2017 at 4:04 am

    In case you missed the following two in ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces:

    Retraction of “BSA Protein-Mediated Synthesis of Hollow Mesoporous Silica Nanotubes, and Their Carbohydrate Conjugates for Targeting Cancer Cells and Detecting Mycobacteria”
    http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acsami.7b00654

    Retraction of “Fabrication of Carbohydrate-Conjugated Fingerprintlike Mesoporous Silica Net for the Targeted Capture of Bacteria”
    http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acsami.7b00655

    Apparently the PIs were not aware of the submissions or did not give consent.

  • Joulik February 27, 2017 at 6:46 am

    In case you missed the following one in Applied Physics Letters (publication of the American Institute of Physics):
    Retraction: “Bulk- and layer-heterojunction phototransistors based on poly[2-methoxy-5-(2′-ethylhexyloxy-p-phenylenevinylene)] and PbS quantum dot hybrids” [Appl. Phys. Lett. 106, 253501 (2015)]”
    http://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.4975640
    The article was retracted by the authors who seem to have messed up some calculation and failed to give sufficient information as far as reproducibility of the experiments is concerned. The original paper had been cited 6 times according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science.

  • iram March 3, 2017 at 9:40 am

    Overexpression of miR-708 and Its Targets in the Childhood Common Precursor B-Cell ALL was retracted because it had been previously published in Chinese

  • Derek Pyne March 20, 2017 at 10:06 am

    Often you have stories or links to stories about predatory journals. Thus, I thought you might find this to be of interest: http://www.utpjournals.press/doi/abs/10.3138/jsp.48.3.137

    • CarolunS March 20, 2017 at 1:53 pm

      This is interesting and shows the benefits to academics of publishing in predatory journals. The expense may be worth it if it helps you get or keep a better job.

  • Joulik March 28, 2017 at 6:15 am

    Just in case you missed the following one in Applied Physics Letters (publication of the American Institute of Physics):
    Retraction: “Experimental techniques for imaging and measuring transient vapor nanobubbles” [Appl. Phys. Lett. 101, 264102 (2012)]
    http://aip.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/1.4978413

    The retraction notice says the decision was made after the Rice University Research Integrity Officer reported misconduct to the journal. The misconduct is about manipulation of figures. The original paper had been cited 16 times according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science.

    It is interesting to note that the retraction notice says that one of the duplicated curves was found in an article (http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v20/n7/full/nm.3484.html) published in 2014, i.e., two years after the publication year of the retracted paper (2012). Does the retraction also question the Nature Medicine paper?

  • Ah March 28, 2017 at 2:41 pm

    Two JBC articles from the same group withdrawn by authors due to image manipulation:
    http://www.jbc.org/content/292/12/5124.short
    http://www.jbc.org/content/292/12/5123.short

  • Joulik March 28, 2017 at 4:29 pm

    Just in case. A group of four authors has had to retract four articles. Apparently, there was a mistake in their molecular simulation code. Two retractions just appeared in Macromolecules (American Chemical Society):
    http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.macromol.7b00492
    http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.macromol.7b00493
    The other two are mentioned in the retraction notice.

    Anyone would feel bad about loosing four articles in a raw, I guess. But here, the retractions seem to follow from a discussion in the literature of the now retracted papers. As mentioned in the retraction notice, two other groups found that the results contradicted theory and experiments. The authors seem to have felt they had to have a closer look at their data. This presumably led them to find the mistake in their program. I would say they did the right thing with the retractions. I just hope the four papers were not the content of a PhD thesis, it would be sad.

    I am working in that precise field of research. In my opinion, this story is a warning for everyone who uses in-house computer programs: double checks, consistency checks etc. whatever you call them are not an option. If the results contradict a theory or experiments, you’d better compare them with another code before you send them for review. There are several of such codes available for free in the field of molecular simulations that would do the job.

  • Vincenzo April 21, 2017 at 9:15 am

    I noticed a number of withdrawn articles from the “Articles in press” section of Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics, with no clear explanation: http://www.medicalimagingandgraphics.com/inpress

  • Michal Dabba May 22, 2017 at 2:36 pm
  • Marco May 31, 2017 at 10:59 am

    Here’s a possible fun one:
    http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0956462416688430
    If I try and read through the lines here, it looks like the authors found out they submitted to a potential/possible predatory journal, tried to withdraw it, and then submitted it to a more credible journal.

  • vn June 9, 2017 at 10:19 am

    A retracted paper in Journal of Electronic Materials:
    RETRACTED ARTICLE: Investigation of Co-Doped ZnO Nanowires by X-ray Absorption Spectroscopy and Ab Initio Simulation
    Link: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11664-017-5578-6

  • tm June 23, 2017 at 2:56 am

    On the online version of Annals of Mathematics, one of the top 3 journals in pure math, there’s an odd “online first” notice, a retraction of a paper by the editors (something very rare, usually it is the authors who give a corrigendum) http://annals.math.princeton.edu/2017/186-1/p09 . What’s odd is that the editors give no explanation whatsoever, and a more minor point is that the retraction is dated july 1,2017 while we’re june 23.

  • Jim June 28, 2017 at 10:09 am

    Research/publication ethics issue. Here is the question, do you feel that it is ethical to have to pay publication charges to an Open Access journal if you are submitting a “Letter to the Editor” to bring to light possible issues with a manuscript that are either unethical or a lack of methods that prohibits replication?

  • John June 30, 2017 at 2:41 am

    Retracted; the story of what happened would be interesting;

    http://m.jbc.org/content/292/24/10320

  • Anon July 20, 2017 at 8:29 pm

    Naude, C. E., Schoonees, A., Senekal, M., Young, T., Garner, P., & Volmink, J. (2014). Low carbohydrate versus isoenergetic balanced diets for reducing weight and cardiovascular risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS one, 9(7), e100652.

    “The US peer-reviewed journal PLoS ONE is now investigating the Naudé Review, which it published in July 2014.”
    http://foodmed.net/2017/07/17/uct-scientists-fraud-silence-noakes-lchf/

    Conspiracy theories aside, I’ve checked some of the stats myself, and at least two means and one standard deviation are incorrect in the meta-analysis.

  • Frank Elgar August 25, 2017 at 6:48 am

    A dispute between the WHO Fetal Growth Study and Oxford’s INTERGROWTH-21st study plays out in The Lancet: ” it looks to us like taking the intellectual content from the WHO fetal growth study to another project and, receiving money for developing the study and then not doing it, while having declared no conflict of interest, is approved scientific conduct.”

    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)31365-X/fulltext?elsca1=etoc#back-bib1

  • Anon August 29, 2017 at 12:58 pm

    The retraction of “A photon thermal diode”:

    https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6446

    Given the simplicity of the flaw in the experimental set up, unavoidable questions about the quality of peer review come to mind. The transparency of the retraction process is commendable.

  • R3 September 11, 2017 at 8:46 pm

    Did you see this about Sato/Iwamoto?

    Three more retractions (J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2017 Aug 28. pii: jnnp.74.5.574ret. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.74.5.574ret; doi: 10.1136/jnnp.2011.244574ret; and doi: 10.1136/jnnp.66.1.64ret) plus 4 expressions of concern (http://www.neurology.org/content/early/2017/09/01/WNL.0000000000004443.short)

  • Marco October 3, 2017 at 8:36 am

    Well, this is a fun one: retraction because of author order dispute http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gbb.12373/full

  • ylc October 3, 2017 at 10:31 am
  • SV October 5, 2017 at 3:28 pm

    This is one case of proven plagiarism
    https://www.spandidos-publications.com/10.3892/mmr.2017.7551

  • SV October 5, 2017 at 3:34 pm
  • SD4 November 6, 2017 at 8:53 am

    A Retraction in Polymer journal due to plagiarism:
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0032386116304281

  • Post a comment

    Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.