Month: November 2013

JBC issues correction for paper by Khachigian, who has had four others retracted

jbc1113The Journal of Biological Chemistry has a fairly gory correction — we’d call it a mega-correction — for a 2010 paper by Levon Khachigian, an Australian researcher whose studies of a new drug for skin cancer recently were halted over concerns about possible misconduct, including image manipulation. As we reported earlier this year, Khachigian has already lost four papers, including one in the JBC — which the journal simply noted had “been withdrawn by the authors.”

The new correction involves the article “c-Jun regulates shear- and injury-inducible Egr-1 expression, vein graft stenosis after autologous end-to-side transplantation in rabbits, and intimal hyperplasia in human saphenous veins,” which Khachigian wrote with Jun Ni and Alla Waldman. The paper has been cited nine times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge. Here’s the notice: Continue reading JBC issues correction for paper by Khachigian, who has had four others retracted

Ask Retraction Watch: Is a t-test no longer publishable?

Photo by Bilal Kamoon via flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilal-kamoon/
Photo by Bilal Kamoon via flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilal-kamoon/

Another installment of Ask Retraction Watch:

Recently I heard a graduate student was told by their advisor, ‘Don’t do a t-test, it’s not publishable.’  This seems ridiculous to me as the t-test is a robust test to aid in answering a hypothesis.  So my question is: is a t-test no longer publishable?  And if so, is this true for higher tiered journals, or all peer-reviewed journals?

I would very much appreciate hearing the opinions of your readers on this issue – do they feel they need to run more ‘elaborate’ statistics (e.g., multivariate, modeling, etc.) in order for their research to be publishable?  And if so, do researchers knowingly violate the assumptions of these more elaborate statistical tests so they can be ‘publishable’?

Please take our poll, and comment below.

Irony alert: Forensic experts have paper retracted for plagiarism

ijmbrTime to roll out the irony meter again.

A group of scientists from Uttar Pradesh, India, who study forensic bioinformatics have had a paper retracted for something that can generally be detected with a specialized form of forensic software: Plagiarism.

Here’s the notice for Kumar Ajay, Singh Neetu, Gaurav S.S. “Forensic Bioinformatics: An innovative technological advancement in the field of Forensic Medicine and Diagnosis,” signed by O.A. Sofola, editor-in-chief: Continue reading Irony alert: Forensic experts have paper retracted for plagiarism

No, math prof, Google isn’t a proper literature search (and don’t plagiarize your dead mentor)

semigroupSometimes, it’s easiest and most straightforward if we just let retraction notices sink in before we comment on them.

Take this one from Semigroup Forum, signed by Chong-yih Wu of National Pingtung Institute of Commerce, Pingtung, Taiwan: Continue reading No, math prof, Google isn’t a proper literature search (and don’t plagiarize your dead mentor)