Author: Ivan Oransky

Left and right apparently agree that “GMO” studies should be retracted (but they’re talking about different papers)

We couldn’t help noticing that the past few weeks have seen calls to retract two papers on food, from different sides of the political spectrum. One paper actually looked at the effects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), while the GMO link in the other paper seems mostly to be in activists’ minds. Consider:

On the right, we have Henry I. Miller writing on Forbes.com about a study of rats fed genetically modified maize: “The honorable course of action for the journal would be to retract the paper immediately“: Continue reading Left and right apparently agree that “GMO” studies should be retracted (but they’re talking about different papers)

Immunology paper retracted because “documents were not archived with due diligence”

A group of researchers from Austria, Canada, Germany, and the U.S. have retracted a 2008 paper in the Journal of Immunology after being unable to verify the contents of some key figures.

Here’s the notice: Continue reading Immunology paper retracted because “documents were not archived with due diligence”

University clears leading dermatology lab head of misconduct as authors issue two corrections

Michael Hertl, a leading dermatology researcher at Philipps-University Marburg, has been cleared of any wrongdoing in a case that spawned a retraction last year and two just-published retractions.

Felicitas Riedel, a legal officer for the university, tells Retraction Watch that the

…Committee for Scientific Misconduct of the Philipps-University Marburg closed the matter and submitted its results to the President of the University who in the meantime after examination consented with it.

The findings? Continue reading University clears leading dermatology lab head of misconduct as authors issue two corrections

“If a paper’s major conclusions are shown to be wrong we will retract the paper”: PLoS

One of the issues that comes up again and again on Retraction Watch is when it’s appropriate to retract a paper. There are varying opinions. Some commenters have suggested, given the stigma attached, retraction should be reserved for fraud, while many more say error — even unintentional — is enough to merit withdrawal. Some others, however, say retraction is appropriate when a paper is later proven wrong, even in the absence of misconduct or mistakes.

Today, apparently prompted by a retraction that fits into that last category and was, by some accounts, a surprise to the paper’s authors, Public Library of Science (PLoS) medicine editorial director Virginia Barbour and PLoS Pathogens editor-in-chief Kasturi Haldar take the issue head-on. Barbour — who is also chair of the Committee on Publication Ethics, which of course has retraction guidelines — and Haldar write: Continue reading “If a paper’s major conclusions are shown to be wrong we will retract the paper”: PLoS

Study linking antidepressants to diabetes retracted when authors publish it twice

A group of researchers from Texas and Zimbabwe has lost a paper after they tried publishing it twice — first in the European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, and then in the International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy.

Here’s the notice: Continue reading Study linking antidepressants to diabetes retracted when authors publish it twice

Iranian mathematicians latest to have papers retracted for fake email addresses to get better reviews

It’s tempting to start calling this a trend.

Three Elsevier math journals are among the latest scientific publications to be retracting papers because fake email addresses were used to obtain favorable peer reviews.

The three papers appear in two journals: “On two subclasses of (α,β)-metrics being projectively related,” in the Journal of Geometry and Physics; and “Complex Bogoslovsky Finsler metrics” and “Sasaki–Randers metric in Finsler geometry,” in the Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications. All three share authors Akbar Tayebi, of the University of Qom, Iran, and Esmaeil Peyghan, of Arak University, also in Iran.

The notices in the Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications read as follows (the EES refers to the Elsevier Editorial System): Continue reading Iranian mathematicians latest to have papers retracted for fake email addresses to get better reviews

Slew of retractions appears in Neuroscience Letters

We’re not sure how many you need for a “slew,” but we’ve seen five retractions in Neuroscience Letters recently, most of them because researchers republished translations of papers in English, so we thought we’d round them up in a post.

We’ll start the count — appropriately, we think — with the notice for “Simple mental arithmetic is not so simple: An ERP study of the split and odd–even effects in mental arithmetic“, published in February by researchers from Nanjing Normal University in China: Continue reading Slew of retractions appears in Neuroscience Letters

Another XMRV shoe drops: PLoS Pathogens study linking prostate cancer to virus retracted

Less than 24 hours after the publication of a study showing no link between XMRV, aka xenotropic murine leukemia-related virus, and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), the authors of a a study claiming a link between the virus and prostate cancer have has been retractedit. The move comes along with the publication of a new study showing that no such link exists.

Here’s the notice, from PLoS Pathogens: Continue reading Another XMRV shoe drops: PLoS Pathogens study linking prostate cancer to virus retracted

New study “puts…speculation to rest” about link between XMRV and chronic fatigue syndrome

Could this really — and finally — be the end for the alleged link between XMRV, also known as xenotropic murine leukemia-related virus, to chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)?

The title of the press release announcing a long-awaited study of the subject in mBio is blunt: “Viruses not to blame for chronic fatigue syndrome after all.” A quote in the release from Ian Lipkin, who led the study, is even more direct: Continue reading New study “puts…speculation to rest” about link between XMRV and chronic fatigue syndrome

Does focusing on wrongdoing in research feed mistrust of science?

There have been a number of thoughtful stories and opinion pieces on scientific fraud recently. There was Brian Deer in the Sunday Times of London last month. Paul Jump, at the Times Higher Education, later that month looked at the lessons of one particular case. Alok Jha, of the Guardian, took on the issue last week.

Yesterday, in a Knight Science Journalism Tracker post on a symposium on communicating science with integrity, Deborah Blum suggested science writers “need to be increasingly aware – and wary – of these issues in academic publishing,” while noting that they are a “minority report.” (And thanks to all of those pieces for the mentions and kind words about Retraction Watch.)

Some scientists, of course, agree, if the steady deluge of tips we get from working researchers is any indication. “We must be open about our mistakes,” wrote Jim Woodgett, of the Lunenfeld Research Institute in Toronto, in Nature earlier this month.

But not everyone thinks highlighting misconduct is such a good idea, Continue reading Does focusing on wrongdoing in research feed mistrust of science?