The editors of ACS’s Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data have sunk a paper on halogenated alkanes after realizing that “a significant amount” of the data was “inaccurate,” thereby “invalidating” the paper.
Here’s the notice for “Influence of Solvent Nature on the Solubility of Halogenated Alkanes” (which has only been cited twice, according to Google Scholar): Continue reading Chem paper retracted because “a significant amount of data” was wrong
We and others have documented plenty of cases where papers get retracted because authors manipulate citations to boost their impact factor.
Sometimes, journal publishers pressure authors to cite papers within the journal to artificially inflate its impact factor. Since this is highly discouraged – COPE has extensive commentary on the problem – it usually happens behind closed doors.
Since we’re all about transparency, we were delighted to discover that the Thammasat International Journal of Science and Technology, a publication out of Thammasat University in Thailand, lists the policy up front: Continue reading Refreshing honesty? Journal asks authors to help game its impact factor
For decades, the U.S. FDA has uncovered misconduct in clinical trials but hidden it from the public, according to a new paper in JAMA Internal Medicine.
The study, by New York University journalism professor Charles Seife, looked at 78 publications resulting from trials where the FDA found serious misconduct, including “failure to protect the safety of patients” and data fakery. Only three of those publications mentioned the problems uncovered by the FDA. No retractions or errata were ever issued for any of them.
For example, in one of the three cases: Continue reading “FDA has repeatedly hidden evidence of scientific fraud,” says author of new study
Tulane researchers Tong Wu and Chang Han, who have been anonymously accused of figure duplication in the past, have now finally lost a paper for that reason.
The frequent plagiarism tipster Juuichi Jigen (a pseudonym) set up a blog in 2012 alleging that the pair inappropriately reused images in six other papers, though none of those have been retracted. The recent notice, issued at the end of January by the Journal of Cellular Biochemistry, states that the figure duplication was confirmed by the University of Pittsburgh’s Office of Research Integrity. Han, the first author, was at UPitt when the paper was published in 2008, though she moved to join Wu at Tulane in 2009.
Here’s the notice for “Regulation of Wnt/ß-Catenin Pathway by cPLA2α and PPARδ“: Continue reading Figure dupe sinks cell bio paper
Mario A. Saad, who last year retracted a paper for plagiarism, is now suing the American Diabetes Association over four expressions of concern in its flagship journal, Diabetes.
As reported in the Boston Business Journal, Saad’s lawsuit claims that his institution, the State University of Campinas, investigated two articles at the journal’s behest. The American Diabetes Association was unhappy with the results, and asked the school to reopen the investigation, including two additional papers.
Saad is suing to prevent the journal from retracting the papers, in addition to monetary compensation.
With the increasingly hectic pace of modern life, everybody is always on the look out for time-saving tricks and tips.
Scientists at the National University of Singapore and the Hong Kong Polytechnic University certainly found one, but we really can’t recommend it: doing one randomized controlled trial (RCT) with several outcomes, and publishing them as three separate 2014 papers with “considerable overlap.”
So far, one paper has been retracted, and another withdrawn.
Continue reading Heart study bleeds into three papers, one retracted and one withdrawn
The hits keep coming for University of Maryland researcher Anil Jaiswal.
The latest retraction for the cell biologist is in Cancer Research, for a 2007 paper about ways in which the cell tries to protect the tumor suppressor p53. Like the first Jaiswal retraction we covered, the latest notice specifically taps figure duplication as the cause of death, “as a result of an error.” The other two retractions gave no explanation for the withdrawal.
Here’s the notice: Continue reading Fourth retraction appears for cancer researcher Anil Jaiswal
It’s always nice when a journal editor actually uses words the way they’re meant to be used instead of employing euphemisms.
In 2009, the African Journal of Biomedical Research published an article on the differences in heart rates when people ran backwards versus forwards. Unfortunately, five years later, the journal found out the paper was a reproduction of a 1994 Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise paper. They contacted the authors and, when there was no response, published a straightforward and fairly detailed retraction.
According to managing editor Babafemi Olaleye, the original paper was received and handled by the founding editor of the journal. In April 2014, the managing editor of Medicine & Science in Sports and Exercise emailed the journal, stating that the paper had been copied wholesale.
Here’s the notice for “Comparison of Cardio-Pulmonary Responses to Forward and Backward Walking and Running”: Continue reading A unicorn: Journal publishes euphemism-free plagiarism notice
A duplicated figure has resulted in an expression of concern for a paper in the American Journal of Pathology on a treatment for ocular neovascularization, which causes vision loss.
According to the notice, the corresponding author, David Shima, now at University College London, brought his concern to the journal. He called it a “genuine error” and stated that all the findings had been reproduced.
Unfortunately, Shima claimed the original data are missing, because the institution that owned the information — Eyetech Research Center — has “since gone through several acquisitions.”
Ocular neovascularization occurs when growth signals in the eye stimulate the creation of many new blood vessels. Over time these blood vessels break, causing bleeding and scarring that limits vision. This is called “wet” macular degeneration.
The scientists found that giving patients drugs to limit two different growth factors at the same time is more effective than one at stopping the progression of AMD. This combination method is in stage three clinical trials, though with different drugs than the authors used here.
The paper, published in 2006, has been cited 130 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge. Here’s the EoC for “Inhibition of Platelet-Derived Growth Factor B Signaling Enhances the Efficacy of Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy in Multiple Models of Ocular Neovascularization”:
Continue reading “Genuine error” sees expression of concern for vision loss paper
We should probably launch a new blog just on the euphemisms used for plagiarism.
A case of “inadequate procedural or methodological practices of citation or quotation” causing an “unacceptable level of text parallels” has sunk a review paper, but not a thesis, for a PhD who studied memory consolidation at Maynooth University in Ireland. According to a statement from the school, Jennifer Moore used “poor practice of citation and attribution” in both her thesis and in a review article published with her post-graduate P.I. in Reviews in the Neurosciences.
The review article, which has been cited four times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge, will be retracted. Because there was no data fabrication and “no misleading of other scientists or laboratories,” the school will not be retracting the thesis nor taking away her PhD.
According to Google Scholar, the review has been cited 8 times. Moore now works as a neuropsychologist at the Great Ormond Street Hospital in London. We’ve contacted her for comment and will update if we hear back.
Here’s the notice for “Reconsolidation Revisited: A Review and Commentary on the Phenomenon”: Continue reading “Unacceptable level of text parallels” loses neuroscientist a paper, but not her PhD