Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Search Results

JAMA journals pull 3 papers by same authors for misconduct

with 2 comments

JAMAJAMA and another journal in its network have retracted three 2005 papers about preventing hip fractures, after an admission of scientific misconduct. 

All papers are being retracted over concerns about data integrity, and “inappropriate assignment of authorship.” Four of the authors — all based in Japan — have co-authored all of the three newly retracted papers, and also share authorship of a previous retraction from 2015

The JAMA paper was tagged with an Expression of Concern last year, regarding the “conduct, integrity, and scientific validity” of the paper. 

Here’s the retraction notice for the JAMA paper, “Effect of Folate and Mecobalamin on Hip Fractures in Patients With Stroke:” Read the rest of this entry »

Osteoporosis paper felled by concerns with “scientific integrity”

with one comment

cover (3)

A paper suggesting that exposure to sunlight might help prevent hip fractures in the elderly has been retracted, due to duplication and “concerns about the underlying data.”

An expression of concern that appeared last July flagged the 2005 paper as containing text that matched another paper with the same first author that was published in 2011. According to the publisher, that duplicated text sparked a closer look at the text, which raised concerns about the scientific integrity of the paper.

The retraction note, published by the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, says that the first author was responsible for the content of the paper: Read the rest of this entry »

The Retraction Watch Leaderboard

with 21 comments

Who has the most retractions? Here’s our unofficial list (see notes on methodology), which we’ll update as more information comes to light:

  1. Yoshitaka Fujii (total retractions: 183) Sources: Final report of investigating committee, our reporting
  2. Joachim Boldt (96) Sources: Editors in chief statement, additional coverage
  3. Diederik Stapel (58) Source: Our cataloging
  4. Adrian Maxim (48) Source: IEEE database
  5. Peter Chen (Chen-Yuan Chen) (43) Source: SAGE, our cataloging
  6. Hua Zhong (41) Source: Journal
  7. Shigeaki Kato (39) Source: Our cataloging
  8. James Hunton (37) Source: Our cataloging
  9. Hendrik Schön (36) Sources: PubMed and Thomson Scientific
  10. Hyung-In Moon (35) Source: Our cataloging
  11. Naoki Mori (32) Source: PubMed, our cataloging
  12. Tao Liu: (29) Source: Journal
  13. Cheng-Wu Chen (28) Source: our cataloging
  14. Gideon Goldstein (26)
  15. Scott Reuben (25)
  16. Noel Chia (22)
  17. Gilson Khang (22) Sources: WebCitation.org, WebCitation.org, journal
  18. Friedhelm Herrmann (21)
  19. Dipak Das (20) Click here for a full list of retracted papers
  20. Khalid Zaman (20)
  21. Jin Cheng (19)
  22. Stanley Rapoport (19)
  23. Yoshihiro Sato (19)
  24. Bharat Aggarwal (18)
  25. Fazlul Sarkar (18)
  26. John Darsee (17)
  27. Wataru Matsuyama (17)
  28. Alirio Melendez (17)
  29. Robert Slutsky (17)
  30. Ulrich Lichtenthaler (16)
  31. Erin Potts-Kant (16)

We note that all but one of the top 31 are men, which agrees with the general findings of a 2013 paper suggesting that men are more likely to commit fraud.

Notes:

Many accounts of the John Darsee story cite 80-plus retractions, which would place him third on the list, but Web of Science only lists 17, three of which are categorized as corrections. That’s not the only discrepancy. For example, Fujii has 138 retractions listed in Web of Science, compared to 183 as recommended by a university committee, while Reuben has 25, compared to the 22 named in this paper. We know that not everything ends up in Web of Science — Chen, for example, isn’t there at all — so we’ve used our judgment based on covering these cases to arrive at the highest numbers we could verify.

Shigeaki Kato is likely to end up with 43 retractions, based on the results of a university investigation.

All of this is a good reminder why the database we’re building with the generous support of the MacArthur Foundation and Arnold Foundation will be useful.

Like Retraction Watch? Consider supporting our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, and sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post.

Written by Ivan Oransky

June 16th, 2015 at 11:09 am

Posted in