Author: Ivan Oransky

Second retraction stemming from Cardiff investigations appears

cancer research 1113A second retraction of a paper by a Cardiff University researcher found to have committed misconduct has appeared.

In April, a Cardiff investigation found that Rossen Donev, a former researcher at the university, had manipulated images in four different papers. Donev, who was at the University of Swansea until August, according to his LinkedIn profile, and is now director of Biomed Consult Ltd., had already retracted a Journal of Immunology paper in late 2011 after a different Cardiff investigation.

The investigation cleared co-author and dean Paul Morgan of misconduct. Morgan resigned from Cardiff in August, but “he categorically denied that his decision had anything to do with the misconduct investigation,” according to Times Higher Education.

Here’s the new notice, from Cancer Research: Continue reading Second retraction stemming from Cardiff investigations appears

Spying on The Onion: Journal retracts drone paper for duplication

euro j agronomyWhen you think of drones, you probably think of deadly strikes in faraway lands. But what about studying crops?

Take “Use of digital photography from unmanned aerial vehicles for estimation of leaf area index in onion (Allium cepa L.),” a study published earlier this year in the European Journal of Agronomy by researchers from Spain: Continue reading Spying on The Onion: Journal retracts drone paper for duplication

Doing the right thing: Scientists reward authors who report their own errors, says study

scientificreportsWe’ve always like to highlight cases in which scientists do the right thing and retract problematic papers themselves, rather than being forced to by editors and publishers. Apparently, according to a new paper by economists and management scholars, scientists reward that sort of behavior, too.

The study by Benjamin Jones of the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University and the National Bureau of Economic Research and colleagues, “The Retraction Penalty: Evidence from the Web of Science,” was published yesterday in Scientific Reports, a Nature Publishing Group title.

The authors lay out what they do: Continue reading Doing the right thing: Scientists reward authors who report their own errors, says study

Two detailed retraction notices correct the cardiology record

jaccTwo American College of Cardiology conference abstracts published earlier this year in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC) have been retracted, one because the authors were actually measuring something other than what they reported, and the other because newer software invalidated the results.

Here’s the notice for “Worsening of Pre-Existing Valvulopathy With A New Obesity Drug Lorcaserin, A Selective 5-Hydroxytryptamine 2C Receptor Agonist: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials” by Hemang B. Panchal, Parthav Patel, Brijal Patel, Rakeshkumar Patel, and Henry Philip of East Tennessee State University: Continue reading Two detailed retraction notices correct the cardiology record

Henry IV, part 2: No retraction necessary, say some authors of royal head identification paper

Henry IV, via Wikimedia
Henry IV, via Wikimedia

Last week, we reported that some of the authors of a 2010 paper in the BMJ claiming to have identified Henry IV’s head thought the study should be retracted based on new evidence. Some of the other authors have now responded to that call for retraction, which appeared on the BMJ’s site alongside the paper.

Philippe Charlier, the corresponding author of the original paper, and five of the original paper’s 15 co-authors conclude after reviewing the evidence that

Continue reading Henry IV, part 2: No retraction necessary, say some authors of royal head identification paper

Ask Retraction Watch: Is a t-test no longer publishable?

Photo by Bilal Kamoon via flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilal-kamoon/
Photo by Bilal Kamoon via flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilal-kamoon/

Another installment of Ask Retraction Watch:

Recently I heard a graduate student was told by their advisor, ‘Don’t do a t-test, it’s not publishable.’  This seems ridiculous to me as the t-test is a robust test to aid in answering a hypothesis.  So my question is: is a t-test no longer publishable?  And if so, is this true for higher tiered journals, or all peer-reviewed journals?

I would very much appreciate hearing the opinions of your readers on this issue – do they feel they need to run more ‘elaborate’ statistics (e.g., multivariate, modeling, etc.) in order for their research to be publishable?  And if so, do researchers knowingly violate the assumptions of these more elaborate statistical tests so they can be ‘publishable’?

Please take our poll, and comment below.

[polldaddy poll=7527789]

Irony alert: Forensic experts have paper retracted for plagiarism

ijmbrTime to roll out the irony meter again.

A group of scientists from Uttar Pradesh, India, who study forensic bioinformatics have had a paper retracted for something that can generally be detected with a specialized form of forensic software: Plagiarism.

Here’s the notice for Kumar Ajay, Singh Neetu, Gaurav S.S. “Forensic Bioinformatics: An innovative technological advancement in the field of Forensic Medicine and Diagnosis,” signed by O.A. Sofola, editor-in-chief: Continue reading Irony alert: Forensic experts have paper retracted for plagiarism

No, math prof, Google isn’t a proper literature search (and don’t plagiarize your dead mentor)

semigroupSometimes, it’s easiest and most straightforward if we just let retraction notices sink in before we comment on them.

Take this one from Semigroup Forum, signed by Chong-yih Wu of National Pingtung Institute of Commerce, Pingtung, Taiwan: Continue reading No, math prof, Google isn’t a proper literature search (and don’t plagiarize your dead mentor)

He said, she said: Journal of Neuroscience expresses concern, but doesn’t pursue investigation

j neuroscienceThe Journal of Neuroscience‘s retraction notices often give us plenty to chew on, and a new Expression of Concern does the same.

In the notice — for a 16-year-old paper — the journal notes three cases of what certainly sounds like image manipulation, but carefully avoids calling it that: Continue reading He said, she said: Journal of Neuroscience expresses concern, but doesn’t pursue investigation

NEJM paper on sleep apnea retracted when original data can’t be found

nejmThe authors of a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine are retracting it, after being unable to find data supporting a table that required corrections.

Here’s the notice: Continue reading NEJM paper on sleep apnea retracted when original data can’t be found