Former Duke researcher charged with embezzlement has a paper retracted

j app physA new retraction notice in the Journal of Applied Physiology gives only a hint at the problems in the paper, but what it does say has led us to a story about one of its co-authors.

Here’s the notice, from a team at Duke: Continue reading Former Duke researcher charged with embezzlement has a paper retracted

Cell line mixup causes retraction of paper on blood vessel damage

britjournnutWe’ve written before about retractions for cell lines that turn out not to be what researchers thought they were. In a few cases, that has involved contamination by HeLa cells, named for Henrietta Lacks. Today, we note the retraction of a paper whose authors, from Taiwan, thought they were using human muscle cells that line blood vessels when they were actually studying such cells from rat embryos.

Here’s the notice in the British Journal of Nutrition for “Molecular mechanism of green microalgae, Dunaliella salina, involved in attenuating balloon injury-induced neointimal formation”: Continue reading Cell line mixup causes retraction of paper on blood vessel damage

Duplication forces retraction of genomics paper

biosA group of biologists has lost a paper about a genomics tool after they published the findings twice.

Here’s the notice for the now-retracted paper in BIOS: Continue reading Duplication forces retraction of genomics paper

How well do journals publicize retractions?

bmc research notesA new paper in BMC Research Notes looks at the retraction class of 2008, and finds journals’ handling of them less than optimal.

Evelynne Decullier and colleagues — including Hervé Maisonneuve, who was helpful to us for a recent post — found: Continue reading How well do journals publicize retractions?

Why I retracted my Nature paper: A guest post from David Vaux about correcting the scientific record

Last month, Ivan met David Vaux at the 3rd World Conference on Research Integrity in Montreal. David mentioned a retraction he published in Nature, and we thought it would be a great guest post on what it’s like to retract one of your own papers in an attempt to clean up the literature.

vaux
David Vaux

In September 1995 Nature asked me to review a manuscript by Bellgrau and co-workers, which subsequently appeared. I was very excited by this paper, as it showed that expression of CD95L on Sertoli cells in allogeneic mismatched testes tissue transplanted under the kidney capsule was able to induce apoptosis of invading cytotoxic T cells, thereby preventing rejection. As I wrote in a News and Views piece, the implications of these findings were enormous – grafts engineered to express CD95L would be able to prevent rejection without generalized immunosuppression.

In fact, I was so taken by these findings that we started generation of transgenic mice that expressed CD95L on their islet beta cells to see if it would allow islet cell grafts to avoid rejection and provide a cure for diabetes in mismatched recipients.

Little did we know that instead of providing an answer to transplant rejection, these experiments would teach us a great deal about editorial practices and the difficulty of correcting errors once they appear in the literature. Continue reading Why I retracted my Nature paper: A guest post from David Vaux about correcting the scientific record

A masterbatch: More polymer retractions, gerontology journal lifts paywall, Microbiology notices appear

masterbatch
Germans and Italians are big masterbatchers. Click to enlarge. via http://bit.ly/100YBKB

Our mothers told us that if we used the masterbatch process, we’d go blind. And what better way to gather some updates to recent posts than to include one that involves said masterbatch process?

First, a retraction John Spevacek noticed when he tried clicking on the link in a Journal of Applied Polymer Science retraction we’d covered: Continue reading A masterbatch: More polymer retractions, gerontology journal lifts paywall, Microbiology notices appear

A fifth retraction for former Pitt and Hopkins oncology researcher Getzenberg

ccrA cancer researcher whose work was the subject of a lawsuit has retracted his fifth paper, this one from 2004.

Robert Getzenberg, formerly of the University of Pittsburgh and Johns Hopkins, has had two papers on prostate cancer biomarkers retracted, and two on colon cancer. The newly retracted paper is about a potential bladder cancer biomarker.

Here’s the notice from Clinical Cancer Research: Continue reading A fifth retraction for former Pitt and Hopkins oncology researcher Getzenberg

Four papers about gaming and virtual worlds become more virtual and less reality as they’re retracted

int j human-computer interactionThe International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction has retracted four papers about virtual reality for reasons that aren’t quite clear.

The common author of the studies is Dong-Hee Shin of Seoul’s Sungkyunkwan University. Here’s the retraction notice, which is signed by journal editors-in-chief Gavriel Salvendy and Julie Jacko: Continue reading Four papers about gaming and virtual worlds become more virtual and less reality as they’re retracted

Would you pay $37 to find out that a publisher had mistakenly printed an article twice?

clinicalgerontologistDo you have a spare $37 that’s just burning a hole in your pocket?

If so, today is your lucky day. You can plunk down your hard-earned cash for a chance to read a retraction notice in Clinical Gerontologist that resulted from a goof by its publisher, Taylor & Francis.

Here’s the notice for “Does Social Desirability Confound the Assessment of Self-Reported Measures of Well-Being and Metacognitive Efficiency in Young and Older Adults?” Continue reading Would you pay $37 to find out that a publisher had mistakenly printed an article twice?

Two retractions in polymer journal, including group’s second for “pervasive misattribution of data”

j applied polymer scienceLast November, we wrote about the retraction of a paper from the Journal of Vinyl and Additive Technology for “pervasive misattribution of data” that rendered “the article’s subsequent discussion and conclusions meaningless and misleading.”

The group now has another retraction, for exactly the same reason. The new notice appears in the Journal of Applied Polymer Science, and the language is identical, because the two journals are both published by Wiley: Continue reading Two retractions in polymer journal, including group’s second for “pervasive misattribution of data”