A highly cited study examining the risks of heart disease in post-menopausal women with symptoms of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) has been retracted by its authors because they could not replicate the results.
Here’s the retraction notice for the paper, which appeared in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism: Continue reading Highly cited paper on women and heart disease retracted for failure to replicate
This week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of a Cell paper by Harvard researchers and the retraction of a JCI study by NIH scientists. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Turning journal spam into a paper; embracing science’s flaws; ending bias
The week at Retraction Watch featured lots of news about exercise. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Should retirement-age scientists make way?; no pay-for-fast-track peer review
The suit, originally filed in February in the U.S. District Court of Southern Ohio by Mitch Potterf, owner of a Columbus, Ohio CrossFit, alleges that a 2013 paper by OSU’s Steven Devor and colleagues falsely reported that nine subjects had dropped out of the study because of “overuse or injury.” The study, we should note, concluded that CrossFit is a useful form of exercise. It has been cited twice, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.
As John Thomas, an attorney who handles False Claims Act cases, explained in a Retraction Watch guest post in March: Continue reading CrossFit gym owner sues Ohio State, says fraudulent data led to $273 million in NIH grants
Dear Retraction Watch readers: In recent months, since we switched to Google AdSense, we’ve heard from a number of you that you find some of the ads on our site annoying. Here’s a secret: Continue reading Don’t like annoying ads on Retraction Watch? Here’s how to keep them turned off
This week at Retraction Watch featured a sexist peer review seen around the world, and settlement of the malpractice case against Duke and Anil Potti. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Stress tests in psychology; writing advice to ignore; how to have fun in the lab
A lawsuit filed in October 2011 against Duke University and Anil Potti, who has retracted 11 papers and corrected a number of others amidst investigation into his work, has been settled, Retraction Watch has learned.
Potti resigned from Duke in 2010 following questions about his work, and revelations that he had lied on grant applications about being awarded a Rhodes Scholarship. He now works at a cancer center in North Dakota.
The lawsuit was filed by subjects in clinical trials based on Potti’s work. Plaintiff’s attorney Thomas W. Henson, who confirmed the settlement, tells Retraction Watch: Continue reading Malpractice case against Duke, Anil Potti settled
Nasser Chegini, the former University of Florida professor currently under investigation by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI), has now had eight papers retracted.
The eighth paper, in the journal Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology, is about the effect of a compound used during fertility treatments on Smads, signaling molecules that carry messages from TGF-beta receptors to the nucleus. It’s being retracted disappeared due to the discovery of data that “have been fabricated or falsified by the last author” — namely, Chegini.
Here’s more from the notice for “Gonadotropin releasing hormone analogue (GnRHa) alters the expression and activation of Smad in human endometrial epithelial and stromal cells:” Continue reading Former Florida ob-gyn prof notches eighth retraction
Since becoming our intern in June of last year, and then our first-ever staff writer in October, Cat Ferguson has written more than 200 posts, breaking news left and right. But as we noted on Twitter the other day with not a small degree of sadness, Cat has left Retraction Watch for a great gig at BuzzFeed.
That means we’re hiring.
The job is definitely fast-paced. Continue reading Retraction Watch is hiring!
The week at Retraction Watch featured a lawsuit over the authorship of a paper, and a look at when exactly a study should be retracted. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: