A group of researchers at two universities in South Korea have retracted two cell biology papers featuring retinoic acid.
The most recent retraction appears in the Journal of Biological Chemistry. Although, in typical JBC fashion, the reason for it is anyone’s guess.
Here’s the unhelpful notice for “ASXL1 represses retinoic acid receptor-mediated transcription through associating with HP1 and LSD1:” Continue reading Cell biologists in South Korea retract two papers
In late 2013, we filed suit along with Automattic, the parent company of our blogging platform WordPress, against someone allegedly at a news service in India who falsely claimed that we had violated its copyright. Last week, we were pleased to learn Automattic won a similar case against a group that tried to censor another blogger.
Both suits were designed to draw attention to people who misuse the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) as an excuse to censor information they don’t like. Last summer, we withdrew our suit, because the defendant had “neither served an answer nor a motion for summary judgment, and indeed has not appeared,” according to our dismissal filing. But by then the issue had made its way to Capitol Hill, where Automattic general counsel Paul Sieminski used our case as an example of DMCA abuse in testimony last March.
While we of course would have liked to have continued pursuing the case against Narendra Chatwal at the so-called News Bullet in Utter Pradesh, we were very pleased to hear last week that Automattic had prevailed in a second, similar case they filed at the same time as ours. In this case, blogger Oliver Hotham was targeted by a group championing the rights of heterosexuals after he posted excerpts from a press release the group sent him along with some commentary; in response, “Straight Pride UK” invoked the DMCA to force Hotham to take down the post. As Ars Technica reported: Continue reading WordPress parent company wins suit fighting false DMCA copyright claims
In 1932, Einstein famously retracted his “cosmological constant.” Now, more than 80 years later, a Brazilian healthcare journal bearing his name has retracted its first paper.
The authors of the review, about the effects of neuromuscular electrical stimulation in hospitalized patients on ventilators, appear to made the genius move of trying to publish their paper in two different journals at once.
Here’s the top of an editorial announcing the retraction: Continue reading A first retraction for Einstein (no, not that one)
This week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of yet another spoof article, and the temporary shutdown of a journal. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Dissertations for sale, spurious impact factors, the roots of plagiarism
Springer has put a cell biology journal on hold, “effective immediately,” after finding a “pattern of inappropriate and compromised peer review.”
Here’s the brief statement from the publisher: Continue reading Updated: Springer journal on hold for “pattern of inappropriate and compromised peer review”
The world, it seems, cannot get enough of Sokal-type hoaxes.
A French journal, Sociétés, has retracted an article allegedly penned by one Jean-Marc Tremblay but actually written by two sociologists, Manuel Quinon and Arnaud Saint-Martin, who spoofed the work of the journal’s editor, Michel Maffesoli.
As the Crooked Timber blog explains, the article, “Automobilités postmodernes: quand l’Autolib’ fait sensation à Paris,” published in the Continue reading So-kalled research: French sociology journal retracts hoax article
The Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS) has retracted three articles that had earned expressions of concern by chemistry researchers who were under investigation at the University of Texas, Austin.
Kelly Wiggins and Christopher Bielawski have already received two other retractions and several EoCs.
The newly retracted articles have each been cited more than 50 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.
The three papers are: Continue reading Bielawski and Wiggins up retraction count to five with three in JACS
In January, we were accused of bullying.
We were writing about a researcher who had 16 papers retracted for fake peer reviews; when we found out he was trying to find a new job in academia, we posted a follow-up that linked to his CV. Some commenters called the post “bullying,” “unethical,” and “over the line.” Not everyone agreed, but the back-and-forth prompted us to think about when such follow-ups were appropriate, and whether scientists who’ve committed fraud deserve a second chance. Continue reading Do fraudsters deserve a second chance?
The week at Retraction Watch featured a number of legal cases by scientists trying to suppress criticism about their work. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Reviewer comments unmasked, the problem with top journal editors, originality an illusion?
