A recent issue of Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology (CREST) adds a new euphemism for plagiarism to our rapidly growing list.
There are two retractions in the issue of the Taylor & Francis journal. One is for “Remediation of Heavy Metal Contaminated Soils: An Overview of Site Remediation Techniques,” by a group from Portugal: Continue reading A new plagiarism euphemism: “language from already published sources without using proper citation methods”
Sam Lee, a Harvard biologist who had two mega-corrections published last year, has retracted a paper in Molecular Cell because some of the figures were “inappropriately assembled.”
Here’s the notice for “GAMT, a p53-Inducible Modulator of Apoptosis, Is Critical for the Adaptive Response to Nutrient Stress:” Continue reading Retraction appears for Harvard scientist who had two mega-corrections last year
It would be difficult to read the recent scientific literature on retractions and miss Grant Steen’s contributions. Retraction Watch readers are no doubt familiar with his work by this point, and if they’re not, we’d recommend spending some time with it. The journal Publications — an MDPI title — has asked him to guest-edit a special issue on scientific misconduct, and Steen asked us to get the word out, so we’re happy to post this introduction from him: Continue reading Journal to feature special issue on scientific misconduct, seeks submissions
With this post, we’re going to try a new feature: Ask Retraction Watch. What we really mean by that is ask Retraction Watch’s readers, who time and time again have shared their expertise and made us smarter. So if you have questions you’d like posed in this space, find our contact info here.
Here goes. A reader asks: Continue reading Ask Retraction Watch: Is this plagiarism?
Perhaps what Garrison Keillor says about people is also true of scientific papers:
Welcome to Lake Wobegon, where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average.
There’s been another retraction in social psychology, but before you lump it together with the field’s problem children — read: Diederik Stapel — it seems to be an example of researchers coming forward about an honest error.
Here’s the notice for “The Motivated Self: Self-Affirmation and the Better-Than-Average Effect,” originally published last year in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin: Continue reading Paper on “better-than-average effect” retracted for being, well, worse than average
In February, we brought you the story of Konstantin Meyl, a
professor who claims to have developed “a self-consistent field theory which is used to derive at all known interactions of the potential vortex”
At the time, one of Meyl’s papers — which a reviewer had called “way out there” — had just been retracted, for duplication. Now a second paper — among the works from which the first retracted paper had drawn — has been retracted.
Here’s the notice from the Journal of Cell Communication and Signaling (which is buried in a footnote at the bottom of the paper): Continue reading Author of “way out there” paper merging physics and biology has second paper retracted
In what may be a first, a researcher in Turkey has withdrawn a paper because the patients whose cases she described wthdrew their consent after it was published.
Here’s the notice, from Allergy, Asthma, & Clinical Immunology, of a paper titled “Severe contact dermatitis due to camomile: a common complementary remedy with potential sensitization risks:” Continue reading Camomile allergy case report retracted after patients withdraw consent post-publication
A chemistry paper on nanorods that became a lightning rod for criticism on chemistry blogs this week has been retracted.
Here’s the notice for “Chopstick Nanorods: Tuning the Angle between Pairs with High Yield,” originally published in June in Nano Letters by Rajasekhar Anumolu and Leonard F. Pease of the University of Utah: Continue reading Nano Letters retracts chopstick nanorod paper questioned this week on chemistry blogs
A researcher at Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands has been fired for research fraud, and the university is retracting two papers, the Dutch press is reporting.
But don’t ask us who the employee was. That information is conspicuously absent from the medical center’s communications on the subject.
Here’s a press release from Leiden, in English via Google Translate: Continue reading Leiden University fires employee for research fraud, two retractions to follow
The corresponding author of a paper on whether “a sense of shame heightens the desire for money” has retracted it, he claims, after being unable to repeat his analysis to try to fix an issue in the study.
Here’s the notice for “Shame for money: Shame enhances the incentive value of economic resources,” which appeared in Judgment and Decision Making: Continue reading A real shame: Psychology paper retracted when data behind problematic findings disappear