Author: Ivan Oransky

Collateral damage: What effect do retractions have on scientific funding?

Photo by Howard Lake via flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/howardlake/

A new study from a group of Boston-area economists sheds some light on whether retractions have downstream effects on related fields, particularly when it comes to funding. From the abstract of the working paper, called simply “Retractions,” by  Pierre Azoulay, Jeffrey L. Furman, Joshua L. Krieger, and Fiona E. Murray:

We find that scientifi c misconduct stifle scientists’ pursuit of specifi c research lines, as we would anticipate if retraction events provide new signals of the fidelity of scienti fic knowledge. More centrally, our findings show that Continue reading Collateral damage: What effect do retractions have on scientific funding?

Bitter authorship issues prompt Expression of Concern in rheumatology journal

A difficult authorship dispute, involving two journals and at least two continents, has led to an Expression of Concern in the Brazilian Journal of Rheumatology.

Here’s the Expression of Concern: Continue reading Bitter authorship issues prompt Expression of Concern in rheumatology journal

And the winner for longest time on record between publication and retraction is…

Photo by didbygraham via Flickr

We’ve had a few unofficial record-holders here at Retraction Watch. The current leader in the retraction column, for example, is Yoshitaka Fujii, who will likely retract 172 papers. He took that record from Joachim Boldt, with just shy of 90.

Today, we’ll take a stab at another record, longest time between publication and retraction. The apparent record holders, at 25 years, are I.E. Swift and V. E. Milborrow, who were at the University of New South Wales in Australia when they published “Retention of the 4-pro-R hydrogen atom of mevalonate at C-2,2′ of bacterioruberin in Halobacterium halobium” in the Biochemical Journal in 1980. Here’s the retraction notice from 2005 (hat tip Jeffrey Furman and colleagues, who noted the retraction in a paper earlier this year): Continue reading And the winner for longest time on record between publication and retraction is…

Duplication forces retraction of paper on effects of prenatal environment on behavior

A journal has retracted a 2005 paper by a group of physiologists at the University of Toronto after it became clear that the work duplicated five other articles by the same researchers.

Here’s the notice in Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews for “Maternal adversity, glucocorticoids and programming of neuroendocrine function and behaviour:” Continue reading Duplication forces retraction of paper on effects of prenatal environment on behavior

Researchers: Stop the spin and boasting in articles, say other researchers

Researchers often like to complain that science journalists puff up their results to sell newspapers. And there’s no question that reporters make missteps. But a commentary published today in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine brings to mind the old saying about those who live in glass houses not casting the first stones.

In a piece called “Spin and Boasting in Research Articles,” Peter Cummings and Frederick Rivara, two University of Washington faculty members, write: Continue reading Researchers: Stop the spin and boasting in articles, say other researchers

High school whiz kid retracts PLoS ONE herd immunity paper

Georgette speaking at the Davidson Institute’s award ceremony, Library of Congress, 2008

It’s pretty impressive to publish two peer-reviewed papers on complicated vaccination models while you’re still in high school. So it’s not surprising that Nathan Georgette, who grew up outside of Jacksonville, Florida, earned a prestigious fellowship from the Davidson Institute for Talent Development.

But perhaps even more impressive is realizing you’ve made a fundamental error in one of those studies, and retracting it while you’re still a college senior at Harvard. Continue reading High school whiz kid retracts PLoS ONE herd immunity paper

Surgery journal issues Expression of Concern when institution can’t confirm case study details “for legal reasons”

The editors of the World Journal of Emergency Surgery have published an Expression of Concern about a paper after they couldn’t verify one of the three case reports in it.

Here’s the notice for “Necrotizing fasciitis: literature review of contemporary strategies for diagnosing and management with three case reports: torso, abdominal wall, upper and lower limbs,” by surgeons from Split and Zagreb, Croatia: Continue reading Surgery journal issues Expression of Concern when institution can’t confirm case study details “for legal reasons”

Updates: Journal of Climate adds info about withdrawn hot temps paper, chemistry journal corrects retraction notice

We have a few updates on stories we’ve covered.

In June, we wrote about the withdrawal of a paper claiming that temperatures in the last 60 years were warmest in the last 1,000 years. At the time, we reported, following posts by others, that the authors had been made aware of errors in their work and were withdrawing it to correct their calculations.

For several months, the page housing the Journal of Climate study read:

The requested article is not currently available on this site.

It still does. But another page that should house the paper now reads, as commenter Skiphil notes: Continue reading Updates: Journal of Climate adds info about withdrawn hot temps paper, chemistry journal corrects retraction notice

Elsevier on Retraction Watch: “scholarly publishing is better for it”

It’s fair to say that we’ve been watching Elsevier over the past two-plus years, and we’ve also known they’ve been watching us. Last year, Tom Reller, the company’s vice president of global public relations, wrote that we “represent the new breed of science watchdog that is able to promote the results of their own investigations quickly via the internet.”

But as Reller notes in a thoughtful post today at ElsevierConnect: Continue reading Elsevier on Retraction Watch: “scholarly publishing is better for it”

In detailed notice, radiology journal retracts lung cancer paper for likely plagiarism

The editors of Acta Radiologica have retracted a study of patients with lung cancer, with a notice that tells the whole story:

The manuscript “Measurement of tumor volume by PET to evaluate prognosis in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated by non-surgical therapy” was submitted to Acta Radiologica on November 3, 2010 and, after a review, accepted for publication on February 26, 2011 (1). The article was published in Acta Radiol 2011;52:646–50. Authors were: Honjiang Yan, Renben Wang (corresponding author), Fen Zhao, Kubli Zhu, Shumei Jiang, Wei Zhao, and Rui Feng, from the Department of Radiation Oncology and Department of Nuclear Medicine, Shandong Tumor Hospital, Jinan, China. Continue reading In detailed notice, radiology journal retracts lung cancer paper for likely plagiarism