The twelfth of Alirio Melendez’s 20-something retractions has appeared, in Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology.
Along with the retraction notice, the journal runs letters from the paper’s two co-authors. Melendez writes: Continue reading Retraction 12 appears for Alirio Melendez, this one for plagiarism
We have an update on two papers about lung cancer screening by Claudia Henschke and colleagues that were subject to an Expression of Concern early last year.
The original Expression of Concern in Cancer read, in part: Continue reading ORI, OHRP find “some human subject issues” in Henschke lung cancer studies, but no evidence of misconduct
Last August, we reported on an Expression of Concern in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine for a paper on HIV and lung injury. The notice said that the University of Nebraska, home to several of the paper’s authors, had begun an inquiry.
Today, the university issued a statement on the case, clearing the researchers of misconduct: Continue reading University of Nebraska clears HIV researchers of misconduct
We’ve come across three notices in cardiology journals this week, so although they’re unrelated, we’re gathering them here.
Item 1, from Circulation Research: Continue reading Heart attack: Two cardiology retractions, plus a notice of duplication, in three different journals
A second investigation into work co-authored by Paul Morgan, a dean at Cardiff University, has cleared him of research misconduct, but has found that Rossen Donev, a former researcher at the university — who has already retracted one study — falsified images in four papers.
As we reported last August, Cardiff “initiated its Procedure for Dealing with Allegations of Academic Misconduct in Research” after Science-Fraud.org and pseudonymous whistleblower Clare Francis brought concerns about several studies to the university’s attention. That followed an earlier investigation into work by some of the same authors. Cardiff has now completed its report, whose findings were first reported by the BBC and Times Higher Education.
According to a university release, the panel, led by a former Cardiff circuit judge, found that (quoting here): Continue reading Cardiff clears dean of misconduct allegations, but finds former researcher falsified images
A potential weight loss drug has been dealt what could be a serious setback after regulators found problems at two trial sites.
While awaiting a final report, The Lancet, which published a study of the drug, tesofensine, has issued an Expression of Concern: Continue reading Trial irregularities earn Lancet study of potential weight loss drug tesofensine Expression of Concern
A pair of Iranian physicists is facing the retraction of one of their papers after editors found out some of the work was plagiarized from two textbooks and an encyclopedia.
Here’s the notice: Continue reading Plagiarism of textbooks, encyclopedia leads to physics retraction
Former National University of Singapore and University of Liverpool scientist Alirio Melendez has two more of the 20-something retractions suggested by the investigations into his work. Both appear in the Journal of Biological Chemistry.
Here’s the notice for “FcγRI-triggered generation of arachidonic acid and eicosanoids requires iPLA2 but not cPLA2 in human monocytic cells:” Continue reading Alirio Melendez notches retractions 10 and 11
A case of alleged misconduct at the University of Washington in Seattle may finally be over. The Office of Research Integrity released its findings following an investigation into the work of Andrew Aprikyan, a former hematology researcher at the university.
The Aprikyan case has dragged on for a decade. In 2010, the university fired the scientist after a court denied his appeals based on allegations that they had denied him due process. As the Seattle Times reported at the time: Continue reading ORI rules in longstanding University of Washington misconduct case
Whose business are the reasons behind a retraction?
Our readers will no doubt know by now that we think they’re basically everyone’s — at least if journals want us to believe that they’re interested in maintaining the integrity of the scientific record. But not all editors seem to agree. Hank Edmunds, for example, didn’t in early 2011, telling us, “It’s none of your damn business.” A chemistry journal editor said, in a similar vein, “the purpose of keeping these retraction notices slim is not to produce too much detail.”
Now, a psychology journal editor joins those ranks. Here’s the notice in question: Continue reading Editor on retraction details: “I do not think this is the business of anyone but our journal, please”