Author: Cat Ferguson

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

langd5_v030i025.inddSometimes 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?”

Blatant plagiarism sinks paper (and earns a sabbatical!) for mathematician

Image via Akash Kataruka
Image via Akash Kataruka

You know it’s a good one when it makes it onto the Wikipedia page for “scientific misconduct.”

On April 21, the International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics retracted two 2008 papers by scientist Alexander Spivak of Holon Institute of Technology in Israel. In September, the journal updated the notice to explain why: The papers both contained copy/pasted chunks from a 2001 paper by Spivak’s post-doc boss at Tel Aviv University, Zeev Schuss, and two other authors.

The tipster seems to have been Schuss himself, who told us about his role in the unravelling of the fraud: Continue reading Blatant plagiarism sinks paper (and earns a sabbatical!) for mathematician

Networking paper retracted for “overlap” with author’s prior publication

jmanagementstudiesHere at Retraction Watch, we have a lot of fun exploring all the different kinds of science that cross our paths.

Some, though, we’re just not qualified to understand, like this retracted paper in the Journal of Management Studies, which according to the abstract “demonstrates that the persistence of brokerage positions decreases broker performance.”

What is clear is the retraction: the author already published the conclusion in a Japanese management journal in 2011.

Here’s the notice: Continue reading Networking paper retracted for “overlap” with author’s prior publication

Doing the right thing: Particle physicists pull paper after equation collides with the truth

physicalreviewlettersThree physicists at Imperial College London have retracted a paper on Coulomb collisions, a kind of fender bender between two charged particles, after realizing their equations were written wrong.

The mistake resulted in an erroneous conclusion about the strength of the collisions.

Here’s the notice for “Effects of Large-Angle Coulomb Collisions on Inertial Confinement Fusion Plasmas”: Continue reading Doing the right thing: Particle physicists pull paper after equation collides with the truth

Oops: Elsevier journal publishes paper citing paper it promised to retract two months ago

elsevierJournal publishers can be agonizingly slow when it comes to officially retracting a paper.

Here’s a prime example of the consequences of that bureaucratic foot-dragging: Ten months after being told that Fazlurrahman Khan had fabricated his data, and two months after announcing two of Khan’s papers would be retracted from two of its journals, Elsevier still has not retracted either paper.

Worse, at least one of the papers, “Degradation of 2,4-dinitroanisole (DNAN) by metabolic cooperative activity of Pseudomonas sp. strain FK357 and Rhodococcus imtechensis strain RKJ300,” in the journal Chemosphere, has been cited since the announcement was made. In fact, the paper was published in Journal of Hazardous Materials, the Elsevier journal that is dragging its feet retracting another of Khan’s papers, “Aerobic degradation of 4-nitroaniline (4-NA) via novel degradation intermediates by Rhodococcus sp. strain FK48.”

Jim Spain, in whose lab Khan worked at Georgia Tech, reached out to us to express his concerns with this timeline: Continue reading Oops: Elsevier journal publishes paper citing paper it promised to retract two months ago

Notice fails to get to the heart of cardiology retraction

cmjThis one is a little odd.

A cardiology paper from China has been retracted because “permission to report these discussions was not sought nor obtained,” though it’s unclear what “the discussions” refers to. The person to whom the discussions are attributed to in the retraction, Ji Bingyang, is not an author on the paper, and none of his papers are cited in the retracted article.

Here’s the notice in the Chinese Medical Journal for “A novel rat model of cardiopulmonary bypass for deep hypothermic circulatory arrest without blood priming”:
Continue reading Notice fails to get to the heart of cardiology retraction

Solvent paper dissolves under heat of institutional investigation

Jced_coverA chemical engineering paper published in February has been retracted for data and authorship problems.

According to the retraction notice, the authors’ institutions investigated and found that not only was the data not reproducible, but “not all co-authors on the manuscript were aware of or agreed to the content and scientific conclusions in the article.”

Here’s the notice in the Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data for “Ionic Liquids as Promising Solvents for Biomass Derived Mannitol and Xylitol”: Continue reading Solvent paper dissolves under heat of institutional investigation

Economics paper retracted for plagiarism after citing its twin

econmodAs we’ve pointed out before, economics and business journals have few retractions compared with the other academic literature. Opinions vary on why this is, but the fact that only a few journals have plagiarism policies can’t help.

Research Papers in Economics, or RePEc, an organization that maintains a database of economics papers, however, thoroughly investigates accusations of misconduct. A RePEc report, which indicated that the plagiarists were polite enough to cite the original paper, was used in the notice as evidence for a retraction in Economic Modelling.

Here’s the notice for “Retraction notice to “Analysis of nonlinear duopoly game with heterogeneous players”: Continue reading Economics paper retracted for plagiarism after citing its twin

Publisher updates with more info on staph retraction

cidWe brought you this story last week, about a paper on drug resistant staph being retracted for a lab error. Now, we’ve got an update from Rachel Safer, senior editor for medical journals at Oxford University Press, where the paper was published.

Apparently, the researchers “inadvertently relied upon the use of a test system that was not approved for the microorganism studied in their paper,” leading to the retraction, and the corresponding author of the study wasn’t initially all that responsive:

Continue reading Publisher updates with more info on staph retraction

Chemical engineering journal retracts paper with unknowing author

AiChemE-logoAIChemE’s website promises, “Subscribing to the AIChE Journal is like having access to nine topical journals in the field.”

Without a subscription, though, you might miss out on some valuable topical information – like why a paper you want to cite has been retracted, something the Committee on Publication Ethics recommends be freely available.

Here’s the notice for “Flow Structure and Particle Motions in a Gas-Polyethylene Fluidized Bed,” originally published in 2007:

Continue reading Chemical engineering journal retracts paper with unknowing author