The former director of the X-ray crystallography lab at the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, part of the National Institutes of Health, faked findings in three papers, according to the Office of Research Integrity.
Two of the three papers by Bijan Ahvazi were published in 2004, and later retracted in 2007, while the other was rejected: Continue reading Former NIH lab director faked findings in three papers: ORI
Last month, we reported that a Wayne State University cancer researcher had threatened legal action involving post-publication peer review site PubPeer, claiming that he had lost a job offer from the University of Mississippi because of comments on the site.
Fazlul Sarkar — who has received $12.8 million in NIH funding and has been an investigator on five clinical trials — has now filed suit against PubPeer’s anonymous commenters, and has demanded that PubPeer release their names and identifying information. The complaint, filed by attorney Nicholas Roumel in Michigan’s Wayne County Circuit Court and which we’ve made available here, details more of the history of the case and of course describes the legal strategy, which we’ll describe below. Continue reading Scientist sues PubPeer commenters, subpoenas site for names
The week at Retraction Watch began with the retraction of a paper touted by Dr. Oz. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
On Monday, we were first to report that a study of green coffee bean extract for weight loss touted on the Dr. Oz Show had been retracted.
That story has been widely picked up by the media, including The Washington Post, which yesterday reported that the show had posted a statement about the development: Continue reading Dr. Oz: Following green coffee bean diet retraction, site scrubbed, “further study is needed”
Researchers in Sweden and Australia have retracted a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) after follow-up experiments disproved their conclusions.
Here’s the notice for “Dominant suppression of inflammation by glycan-hydrolyzed IgG,” which is signed by all nine of the paper’s authors: Continue reading Doing the right thing: Authors retract PNAS paper when new experiments show “conclusion was incorrect”
There’s a new journal in town.
Inference’s first issue includes a lengthy review of a laboratory by a tennis instructor, a set of caricatures, and an exchange of emails from 1996 that is “perhaps, less remarkable for what it says than for the fact that it took place at all.”
In short, its editors — who “would prefer to remain anonymous” — seem to share a sense of humor with the editors of the Journal of Universal Rejection or the Proceedings of the Natural Institute of Science: Continue reading “Editors are pleased to receive death threats on the third Thursday of the month:” A new journal launches
Here’s another installment of PubPeer Selections: Continue reading PubPeer Selections: More stem cell questions; “is the hassle of a correction really needed?”
Two authors of a 2012 paper sponsored by a company that made grand claims about green coffee bean extract’s abilities to help people lose weight have retracted it. The study was cited by The Dr. Oz Show, and last month it cost the company a $3.5 million settlement with the Feds.
Here’s the notice for “Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, linear dose, crossover study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a green coffee bean extract in overweight subjects,” a paper originally published in Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity: Targets and Therapy: Continue reading Authors retract green coffee bean diet paper touted by Dr. Oz
The week at Retraction Watch kicked off with news of the European Science Foundation threatening to sue a scientist for calling a review process “flawed.” Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Continue reading Weekend reads: “Too good to be true” results; the paper as an “artificial landmark”