2014 – Page 15 – Retraction Watch

European Science Foundation demands retraction of criticism in Nature, threatens legal action

The European Science Foundation (ESF) has threatened legal action against a scientist for calling an evaluation process supported by the agency “flawed” in a commentary piece in Nature.

Amaya Moro-Martin, an assistant astronomer at the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) and an associate research scientist at The Johns Hopkins University, apparently angered the ESF with the bolded phrase below: Continue reading European Science Foundation demands retraction of criticism in Nature, threatens legal action

Weekend reads: Senator loses degree for plagiarism; bad colitis poetry; fraud on the big screen

The week at Retraction Watch featured papers by a fake author with a brilliant if profane name, and the unmasking of fraudster Diederik Stapel as a sock puppet. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Senator loses degree for plagiarism; bad colitis poetry; fraud on the big screen

After 16 retractions, management professor Lichtenthaler resigns post

Ulrich Lichtenthaler, a management professor at the University of Mannheim who has had to retract 16 papers for data irregularities, has resigned his faculty position.

According to a terse release from the university (translated from German): Continue reading After 16 retractions, management professor Lichtenthaler resigns post

Cell line switch sinks PLoS ONE cancer paper

We’ve written before about how common cell line mix ups are in cancer research; according to a 2012 Wall Street Journal article (paywalled), between a fifth and a third of cancer cell lines tested by suspicious researchers turned out to be misidentified.

Obviously, mistakenly studying the wrong kind of cancer is a waste of precious resources, both time and money. And it’s clear the problem hasn’t gone away. PLoS ONE just retracted a cancer paper originally published in December 2012 for studying two cell lines that had been contaminated by other cell types.

Here’s the notice for “Epithelial Mesenchymal Transition Is Required for Acquisition of Anoikis Resistance and Metastatic Potential in Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma”:
Continue reading Cell line switch sinks PLoS ONE cancer paper

Yet another study of widely touted cancer “cure” retracted

A third study of GcMAF, a protein being used to treat a variety of conditions from AIDS to autism to cancer, all without the blessing of health agencies, has been retracted.

Here’s the notice in Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy for “Immunotherapy of metastatic colorectal cancer with vitamin D-binding protein-derived macrophage-activating factor, GcMAF:” Continue reading Yet another study of widely touted cancer “cure” retracted

Should papers be retracted if one of the authors is a total asshole?

When science writer Vito Tartamella noticed a physics paper co-authored by Stronzo Bestiale (which means “total asshole” in Italian) he did what anyone who’s written a book on surnames would do: He looked it up in the phonebook.

What he found was a lot more complicated than a funny name.

It turns out Stronzo Bestiale doesn’t exist.

Continue reading Should papers be retracted if one of the authors is a total asshole?

U. Illinois chancellor earns mega-correction for duplicate publication

Phyllis Wise, from University of Illinois — Phyllis Wise, via University of Illinois

Phyllis Wise, the chancellor of the University of Illinois and an obstetrics researcher, has called for a massive correction of a 2006 paper in Neuroscience for work she appears to have tried to pass off as having been previously unpublished — but which wasn’t.

The article, “Estrogen therapy: Does it help or hurt the adult and aging brain? Insights derived from animal models,” has been cited 47 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

And it had caught also the attention of readers on PubPeer, who noted that: Continue reading U. Illinois chancellor earns mega-correction for duplicate publication

Is it better to retract a paper, or publish a letter calling the conclusions “unphysical?”

Sometimes publishers and authors decide it’s easier to retract a paper than leave it up for discussion by other scientists.

That seems to be the case here: The authors of a paper in Langmuir retracted it in September for a math mistake, but not before the journal refused to publish a comment criticizing the publication.

Here’s the notice for “Drainage of a thin liquid film between hydrophobic spheres: Boundary curvature effects:” Continue reading Is it better to retract a paper, or publish a letter calling the conclusions “unphysical?”

Diederik Stapel loses teaching post, admits he was sockpuppeting on Retraction Watch

Diederik Stapel’s reinvention as a teacher at a college in the Netherlands has proven to be short-lived.

According to the NRC Handelsblad, Stapel resigned from the job at Fontys in solidarity with Anton Dautzenberg, whose contract at Fontys was terminated and with whom Stapel had co-authored a play. A performance of that play was cancelled last month.

Stapel, who has 54 retractions, tells Retraction Watch that he “had to resign:” Continue reading Diederik Stapel loses teaching post, admits he was sockpuppeting on Retraction Watch