Author: Adam Marcus

A retraction with “serious consequences to wheat production”

pmbrChinese researchers have had a 2012 paper in Plant Molecular Biology Reporter on genetically modified wheat retracted, in a notice that cites fraud.

The article, “Isolation and Functional Characterization of an Antifreeze Protein Gene, TaAFPIII, from Wheat (Triticum aestivum),” came from the same group we wrote about in April 2012 when they retracted a paper from Acta Biochimica et Biophysica Sinica, also about genetically altered wheat.

At the time, the authors said they were pulling the other paper because they were having trouble replicating their findings. That now seems accurate, but not entirely complete.

As the new retraction notice states: Continue reading A retraction with “serious consequences to wheat production”

Not your data: Nursing paper retracted for misuse of findings

nurse education todayWe’re all for research on improving communication and collaboration among colleagues. But we trust that the experts know what they’re doing. You can see where this is going.

The journal Nurse Education Today has retracted a 2012 article, “Interprofessional learning in acute care: Developing a theoretical framework,” by a UK scholar because, how shall we put it, he might need a few lessons in interprofessionalism.

The retraction notice explains it neatly: Continue reading Not your data: Nursing paper retracted for misuse of findings

“Technical but fundamental errors” lead to retraction of brain tumor paper

neuro-oncologyThe journal Neuro-Oncology has retracted a 2011 paper by a group of researchers in Japan who had purported to find a genetic mechanism for how fluorescence can be used to diagnose certain brain tumors.

The paper, “Enhanced expression of coproporphyrinogen oxidase in malignant brain tumors: CPOX expression and 5-ALA–induced fluorescence,” reported measurements using quantitative real-time (qRT)-PCR.

As the retraction notice explains: Continue reading “Technical but fundamental errors” lead to retraction of brain tumor paper

Liver study a twin, gets retracted

B_SPR570_HIJO Journal.inddThe liver is the only internal organ that can regenerate. So perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that Egyptian researchers tried to publish the same paper about liver ischemia twice  in different journals. They succeeded — for a little while, at least.

The Journal of Molecular Histology is retracting the second of the articles to appear. Titled “Effect of preischemic treatment with fenofibrate, a peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-α ligand, on hepatic ischemia–reperfusion injury in rats,” (which is still available online) it was published in 2011 by Vivian Boshra and Amal M. Moustafa of Mansoura University.

Trouble was, in 2011 Moustafa and Boshra, in that order, had also published “Effect of fenofibrate on the experimentally induced hepatic ischemia/reperfusion injury in rats: biochemical, light, and electron microscopic studies” in the Egyptian Journal of Histology (link to pdf).

That, as we know, is not done.

As the retraction notice states: Continue reading Liver study a twin, gets retracted

Half of researchers have reported trouble reproducing published findings: MD Anderson survey

plosoneReaders of this blog — and anyone who has been following the Anil Potti saga — know that MD Anderson Cancer Center was the source of initial concerns about the reproducibility of the studies Potti, and his supervisor, Joseph Nevins, were publishing in high profile journals. So the Houston institution has a rep for dealing in issues of data quality. (We can say that with a straight face even though one MD Anderson researcher, Bharat Aggarwal, has threatened to sue us for reporting on an institutional investigation into his work, and several corrections, withdrawals, and Expressions of Concern.)

We think, therefore, that it’s worth paying attention to a new study in PLOS ONE, “A Survey on Data Reproducibility in Cancer Research Provides Insights into Our Limited Ability to Translate Findings from the Laboratory to the Clinic,” by a group of MD Anderson researchers. They found that about half of scientists at the prominent cancer hospital report being unable to reproduce data in at least one previously published study. The number approaches 60% for faculty members: Continue reading Half of researchers have reported trouble reproducing published findings: MD Anderson survey

Lack of conflict of interest disclosure undoes scoliosis study

scoliosisThe journal Scoliosis has retracted a 2012 paper by a pair of German spine doctors over what the editors have called a less-than-fully declared conflict of interest involving one of the authors.

That should be relatively straigtforward – but it’s not quite. Turns out the article does include a disclosure, although perhaps the information it contains was incomplete.

The article, “Soft braces in the treatment of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (AIS) – Review of the literature and description of a new approach,” was written by Hans-Rudolf Weiss and Mario Werkmenn. Weiss, it seems, has something of a pedigree in the field. According to this website, he practices the “Schroth method” of recurvature, a technique pioneered by his grandmother, Katharina Schroth. From the site: Continue reading Lack of conflict of interest disclosure undoes scoliosis study

Editor inadvertently spurns reviewers; retraction ensues

jvmacoverThe Journal of Multivariate Analysis has retracted a paper it was never meant to publish — a problem, it seems, of multivariate analyses.

The article, titled “Regression estimation with locally stationary long-memory errors,” came from a pair of statisticians in Chile, Wildredo Palma and Guillermo Ferreira.

It appears that the article did not pass muster with the reviewers, but that the editor somehow missed the message. As the retraction notice explains: Continue reading Editor inadvertently spurns reviewers; retraction ensues

Journal expresses concern over flawed multiple sclerosis treatment guideline

neurology may13coverThe journal Neurology has issued an Expression of Concern over recommendations it published earlier this year regarding the treatment of multiple sclerosis.

The journal’s website received multiple comments from clinicians expressing their own concern about the flawed recommendation, which was published as part of a paper titled “The American Academy of Neurology’s Top Five Choosing Wisely recommendations.” The problematic item was number 4: Continue reading Journal expresses concern over flawed multiple sclerosis treatment guideline

Referencing failure (we mean, plagiarism) leads to retraction of water testing paper

evirmonassFrom the Not Saying What You Mean Files: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment has retracted a recent article by authors in Kuwait who appear to have plagiarized, although you couldn’t really tell from the notice.

The paper, “Detection of bacterial endotoxin in drinking tap and bottled water in Kuwait,” appeared in the December 2012 issue of the journal, which is a Springer title. Continue reading Referencing failure (we mean, plagiarism) leads to retraction of water testing paper

Madoff retracts scientific paper

dcrectNo, not that Madoff.

We’re talking about Robert Madoff, editor of Diseases of the Colon & Rectum. His journal is pulling a 2012 paper by a group of authors in Spain who seem to have been unable to back up their findings when they were found to contain errors.

The article, “Perianal versus endoanal application of glyceryl trinitrate 0.4% ointment in the treatment of chronic anal fissure: results of a randomized controlled trial. Is this the solution to the headaches?” looked at what evidently is a significant side effect of nitroglycerin treatment for anal fissures: headaches. According to the abstract:

Continue reading Madoff retracts scientific paper