Keeping up with the retraction count of Diederik Stapel is proving to be a, well, staple of this job. Four more retractions brings the figure to 45.
The articles in question are: Continue reading Stapel watch reaches 45 retractions
Author: Adam Marcus
Correction for MD Anderson’s Aggarwal, cancer researcher whose work is under investigation
Bharat Aggarwal, the highly cited MD Anderson Cancer Center researcher who has confirmed to us that his work is under investigation by the institution, has a correction of his work in the Journal of Molecular Medicine. Troubled images are to blame — as they have been in previous retractions, and at least one other correction, of Aggarwal’s papers.
The paper, “Celastrol suppresses invasion of colon and pancreatic cancer cells through the downregulation of expression of CXCR4 chemokine receptor,” was published in December 2010 and cited 15 times since, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.
Here’s the notice: Continue reading Correction for MD Anderson’s Aggarwal, cancer researcher whose work is under investigation
Hey authors, “Renewable Energy” doesn’t mean you can recycle words
Renewable Energy may cover conservation, but that doesn’t mean it expects its authors to recycle their own words. The Elsevier journal is retracting a biodiesel paper it published in February 2012 by a group of Chinese researchers who published much the same work in another title a month later. That periodical, the Journal of the American Oil Chemists Society, from Springer, has retracted its version as well.
Here’s the notice in Renewable Energy: Continue reading Hey authors, “Renewable Energy” doesn’t mean you can recycle words
Plague paper partially retracted
Partial retractions — as opposed corrections or the full monty — are unusual events in scientific publishing. But they appear to come in twos.
The journal Infection and Immunity, the work of whose editor, Ferric Fang, is much admired by this blog, has a fascinating example of the breed in its February issue.
The article in question, by a group from the University of Kentucky in Lexington led by Susan Straley, appeared online in 2007. It was titled “yadBC of Yersinia pestis, a New Virulence Determinant for Bubonic Plague,” and, as the words suggest, involved a gene marker for the virulence of plague. Or so it initially seemed.
But according to the partial retraction, the researchers are walking back one of their main claims. Consider: Continue reading Plague paper partially retracted
Look ma, no guidelines! Paper on unpublished fetal surgery recommendations retracted
Clinics in Perinatology has a rather intriguing retraction.
The paper in question was a June 2012 review by a group of researchers at the University of California, San Francisco’s division of pediatric surgery, titled “Maternal-Fetal Surgery: History and General Considerations.”
According to the retraction notice: Continue reading Look ma, no guidelines! Paper on unpublished fetal surgery recommendations retracted
Note to authors: Please don’t use the word “novel” when you plagiarize
Retraction Watch Rule 5.1, which governs ironic article titles (and does not actually exist), clearly states that researchers who plagiarize should avoid the use of words like “new” or “novel” when describing their research (or lack thereof). Failure to adhere to Rule 5.1 can lead to embarrassment — as in the case below.
A pair of electrical engineers from Islamic Azad University, in Isfahan, Iran, has lost their 2012 article in Computers in Biology and Medicine, titled “A novel real-time patient-specific seizure diagnosis algorithm based on analysis of EEG and ECG signals using spectral and spatial features and improved particle swarm optimization classifier,” because, well, it wasn’t. Turns out, the researchers lifted data from an Irish group who, several years earlier, had proposed their own “novel algorithm for neonatal seizure detection.”
As the admirably detailed retraction notice explains: Continue reading Note to authors: Please don’t use the word “novel” when you plagiarize
Retraction record broken, again: University report should up Fujii total to 183
Keeping up with the various investigations into the activities of Yoshitaka Fujii — the assumed record holder for retractions by a single author, with 172 likely — can be a challenge. Between the journals pulling his papers and the institutions looking into his misconduct, it’s hard to keep everything straight.
But we have a new report, from a past employer, that makes for interesting reading and helps tie up some loose ends. The document is from Tsukuba University, where Fujii worked more than a decade ago when questions about the propriety of his findings first surfaced. Continue reading Retraction record broken, again: University report should up Fujii total to 183
Not-smart moves in “smart homes” paper prompt retraction
Here’s a thought: If you’re going to write about the “challenges of information and communication technology,” it’s probably best not to use the Internet to plagiarize.
We’re guessing a group of researchers from Serbia is kicking themselves over missing that memo.
The researchers, from Singidunum University in Belgrade, published a 2012 paper in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews titled “Challenges of information and communication technology in energy efficient smart homes.” The work was supported by a grant from the Serbian government.
But according to a new retraction notice: Continue reading Not-smart moves in “smart homes” paper prompt retraction
“Extensive” errors force retraction of lymphoma radiation paper
A group of researchers from Mexico has been forced to retract their July 2012 paper in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology *Biology*Physics after a reader noticed cracks in the data that proved to be signs of fatal instability.
Here’s the retraction notice for the article, titled, “Randomized Clinical Trial to Assess the Efficacy of Radiotherapy in Primary Mediastinal Large B-Lymphoma”: Continue reading “Extensive” errors force retraction of lymphoma radiation paper
Does “the computer ate my homework” explain retraction of higher ed paper?
We’ve seen papers retracted for lots of reasons, but this is a new one.
A researcher at the University of Ruhuna in Sri Lanka has been forced to retract a paper in the International Journal of Public Administration after evidently failing to properly install the computer software used to process the data.
Here’s the retraction notice for the 2010 article, by Chamil Rathnayake: Continue reading Does “the computer ate my homework” explain retraction of higher ed paper?