A University of Calgary diabetes researcher, Cory Toth, who told us earlier this year that he would cease publishing in the scientific literature, has two more retractions, making seven.
Both appear in Neurobiology of Disease. Here’s the notice for “Differential impact of diabetes and hypertension in the brain: Adverse effects in white matter:”
This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy
This article has been retracted at the request of the Authors.
It has come to the attention of the corresponding author that portions of the data presented in these manuscripts were not performed properly and represent manipulation. The immunohistochemistry in Fig. 6 has been manipulated and the Western blots in Fig. 7 were also manipulated. The authors take responsibility for them and apologize to the readership of Neurobiology of Disease.
And here’s the meat of the notice for “Differential impact of diabetes and hypertension in the brain: Adverse effects in grey matter,” which begins the same way:
It has come to the attention of the corresponding author that portions of the data presented in this manuscript were not performed properly and represent manipulation. The immunohistochemistry in Figs. 4 and 5 has been manipulated and the Western blots in Fig. 6 were also manipulated. The authors take responsibility for them and apologize to the readership of Neurobiology of Disease.
The grey matter paper has been cited seven times, while the white matter paper has been cited 10, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.
The link to the first notice is broken.
Fixed, thanks.
One advantage of salami-slicing your publications — in this case, dividing your work into separate though nearly-identical papers focussing on white matter and grey matter — is that when time comes to retract them, you achieve a similar economy by only needing to write a single retraction letter.
It has come to the attention of the corresponding author that portions of the data presented in this manuscript were not performed properly and represent manipulation.
The Retraction notices themselves do not specify the corresponding author; you have to track back to the now-retracted articles to find out that this was Toth. “The data … were not performed properly”? What does that mean?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969996114001156
According to the retraction notice:
“The immunohistochemistry in Fig. 6 has been manipulated and the Western blots in Fig. 7 were also manipulated”
But it seems that the now retracted article has only six figures, where is that manipulated Fig 7. then?