About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Wrong in the tooth: Faked data, authorship issues force retraction of dental paper

with one comment

cridCase Reports in Dentistry has pulled a 2014 article about an oral parasitic infection (caution: not pretty) after learning that the authors were not exactly honest about their work.

Here’s the abstract of the paper, “Rhinosporidiosis of the Parotid Duct”: Read the rest of this entry »

About these ads

Written by Adam Marcus

September 12, 2014 at 10:30 am

A new partner for Retraction Watch: PRE (Peer Review Evaluation)

with 5 comments

pre valWe’re very pleased to announce that we’ve partnered with PRE (Peer Review Evaluation) to improve access to information about retraction policies.

In the coming months, we’ll be publishing guidelines for what we think should be included in retraction notices, and on how those notices should be publicized. As a release describing the new partnership notes: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ivan Oransky

September 12, 2014 at 8:30 am

Posted in RW announcements

“Potentially groundbreaking,” “highly provocative:” Nature STAP stem cell peer reviews published

with 30 comments

nature 73014A day after we published the cover letter and peer review reports about the STAP stem cell paper rejected by Science, Science‘s news section has published the same material for the version rejected by Nature.

From Science‘s news story about the document: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ivan Oransky

September 11, 2014 at 9:57 am

Posted in obokata

Dissertation in transition: Plagiarism leads to delisting of education thesis, lost PhD

with 2 comments

ccjThe author of a doctoral dissertation on veterans education has lost the paper — and a mention of the work in a roster of theses — because he lifted text from a previously published dissertation from a student at another institution.

Here’s the notice: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Adam Marcus

September 11, 2014 at 9:30 am

Chemical engineering journal retracts paper with unknowing author

with 4 comments

AiChemE-logoAIChemE’s website promises, “Subscribing to the AIChE Journal is like having access to nine topical journals in the field.”

Without a subscription, though, you might miss out on some valuable topical information – like why a paper you want to cite has been retracted, something the Committee on Publication Ethics recommends be freely available.

Here’s the notice for “Flow Structure and Particle Motions in a Gas-Polyethylene Fluidized Bed,” originally published in 2007:

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Cat Ferguson

September 10, 2014 at 11:00 am

“Truly extraordinary,” “simply not credible,” “suspiciously sharp:” A STAP stem cell peer review report revealed

with 25 comments

science 62714Retraction Watch readers are of course familiar with the STAP stem cell saga, which was punctuated by tragedy last month when one of the authors of the two now-retracted papers in Nature committed suicide.

In June, Science‘s news section reported:

Sources in the scientific community confirm that early versions of the STAP work were rejected by Science, Cell, and Nature.

Parts of those reviews reviews have surfaced, notably in a RIKEN report. Science‘s news section reported:

For the Cell submission, there were concerns about methodology and the lack of supporting evidence for the extraordinary claims, says [stem cell scientist Hans] Schöler, who reviewed the paper and, as is standard practice at Cell, saw the comments of other reviewers for the journal. At Science, according to the 8 May RIKEN investigative committee’s report, one reviewer spotted the problem with lanes being improperly spliced into gel images. “This figure has been reconstructed,” the RIKEN report quotes from the feedback provided by a Science reviewer. The committee writes that the “lane 3” mentioned by the Science reviewer is probably the lane 3 shown in Figure 1i in the Nature article. The investigative committee report says [co-author Haruko] Obokata told the committee that she did not carefully consider the comments of the Science reviewer.

The entire reports, however, have not been made available. Retraction Watch has obtained the full text of the editor’s cover letter and reviews of the rejected Science paper. The reviews are full of significant questions and doubts about the work, as would be expected in a rejection. We present them here, to fill in some of the gaps and help readers consider how the research eventually made it through peer review: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ivan Oransky

September 10, 2014 at 8:30 am

PubPeer Selections: Retracted papers, published elsewhere

with 2 comments

Here’s another installment of PubPeer Selections: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ivan Oransky

September 9, 2014 at 11:30 am

Posted in pubpeer selections

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 34,900 other followers