Month: March 2013

“[A]ll of Section 3 is wrong until proven otherwise”: Correction of paper on Democrats’ economic policy

gelman
Andrew Gelman

Andrew Gelman, a statistician at Columbia University and a friend of the blog, has corrected a 2008 paper in the blunt way you’d expect him to.

Here’s the notice in the Annals of Applied Statistics:

In the paper, “Should the Democrats move to the left on economic policy?” AOAS 2 (2), 536-549 (2008), by Andrew Gelman and Cexun Jeffrey Cai, because of a data coding error on one of the variables, all our analysis of social issues is incorrect. Thus, arguably, all of Section 3 is wrong until proven otherwise. We thank Yang Yang Hu for discovering this error and demonstrating its importance.

In a post called “Retraction watch” — hey now! — Gelman writes: Continue reading “[A]ll of Section 3 is wrong until proven otherwise”: Correction of paper on Democrats’ economic policy

U Wisconsin neuroscientist who faked images has first paper retracted

jbc315Rao Adibhatla, a University of Wisconsin scientist who was found by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) to have faked data in two papers, has had one of those studies retracted.

Here’s the notice for “CDP-choline significantly restores phosphatidylcholine levels by differentially affecting phospholipase A2 and CTP: phosphocholine cytidylyltransferase after stroke,” by Adibhatla and a number of colleagues in the Journal of Biological Chemistry (JBC): Continue reading U Wisconsin neuroscientist who faked images has first paper retracted

Retraction nine appears for Alirio Melendez

alirio_melendezAn immunologist found by a former employer to have committed misconduct in more than 20 papers has had another paper retracted.

Here’s the notice for “Refining siRNA in vivo transfection: Silencing SPHK1 reveals its key role in C5a-induced inflammation in vivo,” by Alirio Melendez and colleagues in The International Journal of Biochemistry & Cell Biology: Continue reading Retraction nine appears for Alirio Melendez

Lance Armstrong in the scientific literature: A “reconsideration”

japhysIn January, as Lance Armstrong was performing the 21st century version of a confessional — appearing on Oprah — we wrote about a 2005 paper in the Journal of Applied Physiology about a “bicyclist who has now become the six-time consecutive Grand Champion of the Tour de France.”

That paper was, of course, about Armstrong, and in the months since our post, according to a just-published editorial, the editors of the journal asked author Edward Coyle of the University of Texas, Austin Continue reading Lance Armstrong in the scientific literature: A “reconsideration”

“Redundant in principle”: Blood retracts paper built on double-dipping of data by co-author

blood coverBlood has retracted a 2012 paper by a pair of Swedish authors, one of whom appears to have misappropriated data from his mentor.

The article, titled “Microparticles are the basic storage units for different proteins in platelet granules,” appeared online in July 2012 and was written by Chi Zhang and Yang Yang, of the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm.

But as the retraction notice explains, there was a problem:

Continue reading “Redundant in principle”: Blood retracts paper built on double-dipping of data by co-author

Paper — with longest title ever? — retracted for lack of author approval

inorgchimactaThe journal Inorganica Chimica Acta has retracted a paper it published earlier this year over an authorship dispute involving the lead researcher and his colleagues in France.

The title of the paper — whose bulk alone gave us a headache  — was “Reaction of a bidentate ligands (4,4′-dimethyl 2,2′-bipyridine) with planar-chiral chloro-bridged ruthenium: Synthesis of cis-dicarbonyl[4,4′-dimethyl-2,2′-bipyridine- κO1,κO2]{2-[tricarbonyl(η6-phenylene- κC1)chromium]pyridine-κN}ruthenium hexafluorophosphate” — and it purportedly came from a lab in Beirut.

However, as the retraction notice indicates, that’s not quite so:

Continue reading Paper — with longest title ever? — retracted for lack of author approval

Could the sequester mean more business for Retraction Watch?

congressConsider this a bit of a thought experiment, but hear us out.

The National Institutes of Health earlier this month notified the scientists it funds that, thanks to the sequester, many may soon face cuts in those grants as the agency tries to deal with a reduction in its $30.9 billion budget. In her March 4 letter to grantees, NIH’s Sally Rockey, deputy director for extramural research, wrote:

At this time, the Department of Health and Human Services and NIH are taking every step to mitigate the effects of these cuts, but based on our initial analysis, it is possible that your grants or cooperative agreement awards may be affected.  Examples of this impact could include: not issuing continuation awards, or negotiating a reduction in the scope of your awards to meet the constraints imposed by sequestration.  Additionally, plans for new grants or cooperative agreements may be re-scoped, delayed, or canceled depending on the nature of the work and the availability of resources. Continue reading Could the sequester mean more business for Retraction Watch?

Duplication, aka self-plagiarism, meets management-speak

management learningWhat happens when people who study management have to write a retraction notice? This, from Management Learning, regarding a paper by Gordon Müller-Seitz of the Free University of Berlin, suggests one possibility: Continue reading Duplication, aka self-plagiarism, meets management-speak

Findings of “greatly enhanced” optics turn out to be, well, greatly enhanced

nature photonicsThe authors of a paper in Nature Photonics have been forced to walk back their article after learning from another group of researchers that their conclusions likely were an, ahem, optical illusion.

The paper, “Greatly enhanced continuous-wave terahertz emission by nano-electrodes in a photoconductive photomixer,” appeared in January 2012 and came from a team led by that included Aaron Danner, an optics expert at the National University of Singapore. As the abstract of the paper explains (to physicists, anyway):

Continue reading Findings of “greatly enhanced” optics turn out to be, well, greatly enhanced

Paper with “missing or placed wrongly” controls retracted because there’s “no editorial mechanism to review the errors”

jgvTwo researchers from Singapore are retracting a paper that included errors in three figures because there’s apparently no way to fix the mistakes and have the new work reviewed.

Here’s the notice for “Host-dependent effects of the 3′ untranslated region of turnip crinkle virus RNA on accumulation in Hibiscus and Arabidopsis,” by Weimin Li and Sek-Man Wong of National University of Singapore and Temasek Life Sciences Laboratory: Continue reading Paper with “missing or placed wrongly” controls retracted because there’s “no editorial mechanism to review the errors”