Two authors in Turkey have had their paper subjected to a correction after it became clear that material was lifted heavily from two previous papers by one of the researchers.
The corrigendum reads: Continue reading Duplication earns engineering paper a corrigendum rather than a retraction
A PhD student at the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business who had a paper retracted for plagiarism in March has had a second paper retracted.
Bloomberg BusinessWeek was first to report the new retraction by Eugene Z. Geh. The study, “Understanding the Antecedents to an Entrepreneurial Firm’s Intent to Engage in International Strategic Alliances,” originally published in the Journal of Enterprising Culture, now simply reads: Continue reading University of Virginia business PhD student has second paper retracted
A team of researchers including NASA scientists have retracted a December 2012 article because it plagiarized…a 2000 NASA report.
Here’s the notice for “A Fosmid Cloning Strategy for Detecting the Widest Possible Spectrum of Microbes from the International Space Station Drinking Water System,” published in Genomics & Informatics: Continue reading Paper by NASA scientists retracted for plagiarizing NASA report
The title of this post is the title of a new study in PLOS ONE by three researchers whose names Retraction Watch readers may find familiar: Grant Steen, Arturo Casadevall, and Ferric Fang. Together and separately, they’ve examined retraction trends in a number of papers we’ve covered.
Their new paper tries to answer a question we’re almost always asked as a follow-up to data showing the number of retractions grew ten-fold over the first decade in the 21st century. As the authors write: Continue reading “Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?” New study tries to answer
A group of authors has withdrawn a paper from the Journal of Biological Chemistry (JBC), but readers won’t know why.
The paper, “Static High-Gradient Magnetic Fields Activate Transient Receptor Potential Vanilloid 4 (TRPV4) Ion Channels Enabling Remote Control of Cell Function,” whose corresponding author is Thomas Simmet of Ulm University, appeared online on June 11. Since June 24, the PDF of the paper has been stamped: Continue reading Researchers get a mulligan: JBC paper withdrawn sans explanation
Retraction Watch readers are by now more than likely familiar with the growing concerns over reproducibility in science. In response to issues in fields from cancer research to psychology, scientists have come up with programs such as the Reproducibility Initiative and the Open Science Framework.
These sorts of efforts are important experiments in ensuring that findings are robust. We think there’s another potential way to encourage reproducibility: Giving journals an incentive to publish results that hold up.
As we write in our latest LabTimes column, we have already called for a Transparency Index Continue reading Time for a scientific journal Reproducibility Index
We’ve often found that when some authors refuse to sign retraction notices, there’s a much bigger story than terse notices let on. And a retraction in this week’s Nature of a 19-year-old paper is a shining example of that.
Here’s the brief notice for “Oligosaccharide ligands for NKR-P1 protein activate NK cells and cytotoxicity,” a 1994 paper by researchers from the UK and the Czech Republic that had already been subject to a 1996 correction: Continue reading Retraction of 19-year-old Nature paper reveals hidden cameras, lab break-in, evidence tampering
Two studies by Adam Savine, the former Washington University neuroscience graduate student found by the Office of Research Integrity to have falsified data, have been retracted.
Here’s the notice for one: Continue reading Retractions arrive for former Wash U neuroscience grad student found to have committed misconduct
A University of Copenhagen researcher who co-authored papers with Milena Penkowa — once the subject of misconduct and embezzlement inquiries — has been found by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (acronym UVVU in Danish) to have acted in a “scientifically dishonest” and “grossly negligent” manner.
Two different researchers brought complaints against Bente Klarlund Pedersen and three of her co-authors (not including Penkowa) and the committee has ruled on both. According to a one-page English summary of the draft ruling on complaints brought by Jamie Timmons: Continue reading Danish committee: Researcher acted in “scientifically dishonest” and “grossly negligent” manner
Last year, we reported on two retractions and two corrections by a team at the University of Utah. The retractions were because “some of the original data were inappropriately removed from the laboratory.”
At the time, corresponding author Jerry Kaplan told us that:
The data were lost when an employee, who was dismissed, discarded lab notebooks without permission. This occurred prior to the identification of errors in the manuscripts and was reported at that time to the University authorities.
The university would not confirm whether it investigated the case. However, we have now learned that Continue reading Scientists whose papers were retracted and corrected leave University of Utah