Author: Ivan Oransky

STAP stem cell papers officially retracted as Nature argues peer review couldn’t have detected fatal problems

nature 714A significant chapter of the nearly six-month saga of the STAP stem cell controversy has come to an end, with Nature running retraction notices for the two papers involved. The journal has also published an editorial about the case that’s worth a read.

The retractions for “Bidirectional developmental potential in reprogrammed cells with acquired pluripotency” and “Stimulus-triggered fate conversion of somatic cells into pluripotency” both read: Continue reading STAP stem cell papers officially retracted as Nature argues peer review couldn’t have detected fatal problems

Geneticist retracting four papers for “significant problems”

jbc 620Benjamin Barré, a genetics researcher who recently set up his own group at the University of Angers, is retracting four papers he worked on as a graduate student and postdoc.

Neil Perkins, in whose lab Barré was a postdoc, and Olivier Coqueret, in whose lab he did his PhD, tell Retraction Watch: Continue reading Geneticist retracting four papers for “significant problems”

Some retractions take three years to show up on PubMed: Study

bmcresnotesRetraction Watch readers may have noticed that we often cover retractions long before they appear in PubMed, the gold standard database for the life sciences literature. (In fact, we’ve taken to leaving comments on papers in PubMed Commons about retractions that haven’t been linked to their original abstracts yet.)

This can be an issue, because so many scientists use PubMed to find relevant literature. It may even contribute to the well-documented phenomenon of researchers citing retracted papers as if they hadn’t been retracted.

Until now, no one had quantified the time lag. In a new study, Evelynne Decullier, Laure Huot, and Hervé Maisonneuve — who have published on retractions before — looked at 237 retractions published in 2008. Their findings? Continue reading Some retractions take three years to show up on PubMed: Study

How often do economists commit misconduct?

research policyWe haven’t covered that many retractions in economics, and a 2012 paper found very few such retractions. Now, a new study based on a survey of economists tries to get a handle on how often economists commit scientific misconduct.

Here’s the abstract of “Scientific misbehavior in economics,” which appeared in Research Policy: Continue reading How often do economists commit misconduct?

Weekend reads: Academics go to court, hijacked journals

booksAnother busy week at Retraction Watch, with Ivan in Seoul speaking on research integrity at the Korean Medical Association conference. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Academics go to court, hijacked journals

Chemistry paper in Science earns expression of concern for unreliable data

science 62714A 2011 paper in Science has been subjected to an expression of concern and has led to an investigation by the Texas university where the work was done.

Here’s the expression of concern, signed by Science editor in chief Marcia McNutt (and paywalled): Continue reading Chemistry paper in Science earns expression of concern for unreliable data

Republished Seralini GMO-rat study was not peer-reviewed, says editor

env sci europeIn our coverage Tuesday of the republication of the controversial retracted study of GMOs and rats by Gilles Seralini and colleagues, we wrote this about a strange passage in an editor’s note on the paper:

The republished study was peer-reviewed, according to the press materials, and Seralini confirmed that it was in an email to Retraction Watch. But we were curious what “any kind of appraisal of the paper’s content should not be connoted” meant. We asked Seralini and the editor of Environmental Sciences Europe, Henner Hollert, but neither responded.

Hollert has responded to the same question from Nature, which reports: Continue reading Republished Seralini GMO-rat study was not peer-reviewed, says editor

Cancer researcher facing criminal inquiry up to six retractions

jbc 620Alfredo Fusco, who is under criminal investigation in Italy for scientific fraud, has had two more papers retracted.

Both are in the Journal of Biological Chemistry (JBC). Here are the two studies: Continue reading Cancer researcher facing criminal inquiry up to six retractions

Physicists with retraction for a “pattern that was unphysical” lose another for manipulation

journal of applied physicsIn September, we wrote about the retraction of a physics paper for “a pattern that was unphysical.”

The team, whose first author, R.K. Singhal refused to sign the notice, has had another paper retracted, this one in the Journal of Applied Physics. Here’s the notice for “Study of electronic structure and magnetization correlations in hydrogenated and vacuum annealed Ni doped ZnO:” Continue reading Physicists with retraction for a “pattern that was unphysical” lose another for manipulation

Retracted Seralini GMO-rat study republished

env sci europeA highly controversial — and retracted — 2012 study by Gilles Seralini and colleagues of the effects of genetically modified maize and the Roundup herbicide on rats has been republished.

Retraction Watch readers may recall that the editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology decided to retract the heavily criticized paper because it was “inconclusive.” The editor, A. Wallace Hayes, claimed that this was consistent with Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, although we and many others disagreed.

Here’s the original abstract of the Food and Chemical Toxicology paper, which has been cited 55 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge: Continue reading Retracted Seralini GMO-rat study republished