Marc Abrahams, of Improbable Research and the Ig Nobels, found something remarkable earlier this evening, as he is wont to do:
That’s right, a paper written by two Penises and a von Boning. But much to Abrahams’ chagrin, he notes: Continue reading The case of the three retracted Penises
Another installment of Ask Retraction Watch. A reader asks:
I was curious, what happens to papers after retraction?
In some cases the papers are retracted by authors claiming that they found some error in the data. As I know, that retraction means that paper is retracted from the whole literature. If the original authors want to publish part of the paper or the whole paper itself after removing or correcting the erroneous part, is that OK? Or are they guilty of duplication?
If the authors want to republish the corrected data, should they inform the editors about earlier retraction or not? I believe if they inform the editors, they will spoil any chance of the paper being accepted.
Vote in our poll, and comment below.
Continue reading Ask Retraction Watch: Can data from retracted papers be republished?
Ulrich Lichtenthaler, the management professor at the University of Mannheim who has had a dozen papers retracted, has now lost his license to teach.
The WHU-Otto Beisheim School of Management, where Lichtenthaler earned his PhD, announced the move Friday, saying (courtesy Google Translate): Continue reading Management prof with 12 retractions loses his license to teach
Time for another installment of Ask Retraction Watch. Today’s query comes from a postdoc:
I have a question regarding publications in different languages: Can I publish the same identical data in two different languages? Would this be considered duplication?
Continue reading Ask Retraction Watch: Can I publish identical data in two different languages?
MIT’s Robert Weinberg, a leading cancer researcher who retracted a Cancer Cell paper earlier this year for “inappropriate presentation” of figures, has corrected a different paper in the same journal.
Here’s the correction for “Species- and Cell Type-Specific Requirements for Cellular Transformation:”
We were apprised recently of errors made in the assembly of Figures 2B, 3A, 4A, 4B, and 5G, resulting in the incorporation of incorrect representative images in these figures. These errors occurred during the electronic assembly and have no bearing on the conclusions of the study. The corrected figures are shown below. The authors apologize for any possible confusion this might have caused.
Here’s the original Figure 2 and caption, followed by the new version (read all the way to the end of the post for more details on how this came to light): Continue reading A Cancer Cell mega-correction for highly cited researcher who retracted paper earlier this year
We’ll say it again: We like being able to point out when researchers stand up and do the right thing, even at personal cost.
In December 2011, Pamela C. Ronald, of the University of California, Davis, and colleagues published a paper in PLOS ONE,”Small Protein-Mediated Quorum Sensing in a Gram-Negative Bacterium.” Such quorum sensing research is a “hot topic” right now, so not surprisingly the paper caught the attention of other scientists, and the media, including the Western Farm Press. The study has been cited eight times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.
One of those scientists who took notice was Ronald’s UC Davis colleague Jonathan Eisen, who posted about the paper on his blog. That was on January 9, 2012. But if you go to that post today, you’ll see that Eisen struck through most of it, and added this comment: Continue reading Doing the right thing: Researchers retract quorum sensing paper after public process
Last month, we reported on a retraction in Judgment and Decision Making that said “problems were discovered with the data.” At the time, corresponding author Wen-Bin Chiou, of National Sun Yat-sen University in Taiwan, told us that a research assistant who had since left the lab hadn’t kept questionnaires used in the research, making replication impossible.
But it turns out that wasn’t the whole story of “Shame for money: Shame enhances the incentive value of economic resources,” to put it charitably. We’ve now heard from people familiar with the case and can provide a fuller account.
The problems with the paper, according to our source, Continue reading Real problems with retracted shame and money paper revealed
CHICAGO — Almost two years after editors at 18 journals agreed in March 2011 to retract 88 of former retraction record holder Joachim Boldt’s papers, 10% of them hadn’t been retracted.
That’s what Nadia Elia, Liz Wager, and Martin Tramer reported here Sunday in an abstract at the Seventh International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication. Elia and Tramer are editors at the European Journal of Anaesthesiology, while Wager is former chair of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
As of January 2013, nine of the papers hadn’t been retracted, Tramer said, while only five — all in one journal — had completely followed COPE guidelines, with adequate retraction notices, made freely available, along with PDFs properly marked “Retracted.” From the abstract (see page 18): Continue reading What happened to Joachim Boldt’s 88 papers that were supposed to be retracted?
A group of researchers at the Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx, New York has retracted two papers for image manipulation.
The retraction notices for “PM02734 (Elisidepsin) Induces Caspase-Independent Cell Death Associated with Features of Autophagy, Inhibition of the Akt/mTOR Signaling Pathway, and Activation of Death-Associated Protein Kinase” and “The Phosphatase Inhibitor Menadione (Vitamin K3) Protects Cells from EGFR Inhibition by Erlotinib and Cetuximab” say the same thing: Continue reading Papers on potential cancer drugs retracted for image manipulation
The Lancet has retracted a study of Novartis’ blood pressure drug valsartan (Diovan) that has been subject to an investigation following the retraction of a related study earlier this year.
Continue reading Lancet retracts Jikei Heart Study of valsartan following investigation