Author: Ivan Oransky

Brazil statement urges culture of research integrity

As its research institutions grow and mature, the Brazilian scientific establishment is hoping its scientists encourage research integrity and responsible conduct of research.

In late May, Ivan was invited to Brazil to take part in the Second Brazilian Meeting on Research Integrity, Science and Publication Ethics(II BRISPE). Organized by the Medical Biochemistry Institute (IBqM/UFRJ) & Alberto Luiz Coimbra Institute for Graduate Studies and Research in Engineering (COPPE/UFRJ), the meeting traveled from Rio de Janeiro to São Paulo to Porto Alegre over the course of several days.

One of the goals of the whirlwind meeting, which brought together researchers, administrators, funding agencies, and experts in scientific integrity from around the world, was to produce a Joint Statement on Scientific Integrity. That statement, into which Ivan had input, has now been published, so we thought we’d post links to it in English, Portuguese, and Spanish and check in with Sonia Maria Ramos Vasconcelos, one of the organizers of the meeting. Continue reading Brazil statement urges culture of research integrity

Chinese mathematician forced to retract paper after two co-authors say they had nothing to do with work

A mathematician will be performing subtraction on his CV now that he has had to retract a 2011 paper because his co-authors never agreed to submit it with him.

Kewen Zhao, of Qiongzhou University, Sanya, China, has lost a paper in Discrete Applied Mathematics, a journal for which Zhao claims to review. (Given the circumstances, perhaps he meant Indiscreet Applied Mathematics.)

According to the notice: Continue reading Chinese mathematician forced to retract paper after two co-authors say they had nothing to do with work

Another retraction for potential prostate cancer test from Hopkins

Earlier this year, we reported on the case of Robert Getzenberg of Johns Hopkins, who retracted a 2007 paper in Urology that was “at the center of two 2009 lawsuits brought by a company that funded the work.”

Getzenberg has now retracted a related paper,  “Analysis of a serum test for prostate cancer that detects a second epitope of EPCA-2,” published in The Prostate in 2009 and cited nine times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

The notice in The Prostate goes further than the one in Urology, using the word “falsification:” Continue reading Another retraction for potential prostate cancer test from Hopkins

Amarin pulls a Romney: For the second time in a week, premature news of FDA drug approval posted, then retracted

There is apparently a special this week on websites posting news of drug approvals before they actually happen.

On Monday, USA Today inadvertently posted a story about the approval of Qsymia, a weight loss drug, several hours before the FDA made an announcement. Today, Amarin, which makes a compound designed to lower triglycerides, put up a site saying that the drug had been approved by the FDA. Trouble was, that decision isn’t expected until July 26. According to Reuters: Continue reading Amarin pulls a Romney: For the second time in a week, premature news of FDA drug approval posted, then retracted

Two retractions in biophysics journal, one because article is “too preliminary and potentially misleading”

We’ve seen vigorous debates here on Retraction Watch about when studies should be retracted. Does it require fraud? Just not being reproducible? Somewhere in between?

Given the apparent divergence of opinions on the issue, we thought it would be worth highlighting a case that involves language we haven’t seen before. Here’s the notice for “Apoptosis of CT26 colorectal cancer cells induced by Clostridium difficile toxin A stimulates potent anti-tumor immunity,” which originally appeared online in Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications in April: Continue reading Two retractions in biophysics journal, one because article is “too preliminary and potentially misleading”

Hmmm: SAGE’s attorney explains why weight loss retraction notices said less than those of other journals

In May, we broke the story of Edward Shang, a weight loss surgeon who made up most, if not all, of the patients he reported on in at least one study. We’ve been following the case since then, including three more retractions in the Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (JPEN).

As we noted in a June 22 post, the notices in JPEN were a bit more lean than the first notice we found, in Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases. The latter read: Continue reading Hmmm: SAGE’s attorney explains why weight loss retraction notices said less than those of other journals

USA Today posts story on approval of diet drug too soon, takes it down

USA Today has yanked back a story about a diet drug’s approval by the FDA — because the FDA hasn’t actually approved the drug yet.

The FDA is scheduled to announce its decision on the subject of the story — Vivus’ Qnexa — today. The decision has been closely watched.

The story, headlined “New diet drug helps heavy patients lose 10% of weight,” includes a lot of reporting, including comments from the president of Vivus about a change in name from Qnexa to something else. (We’ll leave USA Today that apparent scoop, although others might not.) It was posted on the Salem, Oregon’s Statesman Journal at 12:16 p.m. today, presumably Eastern, since it was taken down before the West Coast arrived at 2 p.m. Continue reading USA Today posts story on approval of diet drug too soon, takes it down

Three papers by German management prof retracted for duplication, statistical issues

Ulrich Lichtenthaler, a management professor in Germany, has had three papers retracted by two different journals, after readers noticed statistical irregularities.

Lichtenthaler was at the WHU – Otto Beisheim School of Management when he published the papers in 2009 and 2010. He is now at the University of Mannheim. The retraction in Strategic Organization was first reported by the Strategy Profs blog. It reads: Continue reading Three papers by German management prof retracted for duplication, statistical issues

How can institutions prevent scientific misconduct?

There has been plenty of interest in scientific fraud and misconduct lately — and not just on Retraction Watch — from major news outlets and government agencies, among other parties. The rate of retractions is increasing, and some fraudsters are even setting new records. That has focused attention on how institutions can prevent misconduct — not something anyone thinks is easy to do.

To try to figure it out, Columbia University’s Donald Kornfeld decided to review 146 U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) cases from 1992 to 2003, “based on 50 years of clinical experience in psychiatry and 19 years as the chairman of two institutional review boards.” (Of note, these only represent cases in which ORI concluded there was misconduct, as the agency doesn’t report on negative cases.) Here’s what he found, reported last month in Academic Medicine: Continue reading How can institutions prevent scientific misconduct?

University of Michigan psychologist resigns following concerns by statistical sleuth Simonsohn: Nature

A second psychology researcher has resigned after statistical scrutiny of his papers by another psychologist revealed data that was too good to be true.

Ed Yong, writing in Nature, reports that Lawrence Sanna, most recently of the University of Michigan, left his post at the end of May. That was several months after Uri Simonsohn, a University of Pennsylvania psychology researcher, presented Sanna, his co-authors, and Sanna’s former institution, the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, with evidence of “odd statistical patterns.”

Simonsohn is the researcher who also forced an investigation into the work of Dirk Smeesters, who resigned last month. Last week, Yong reported that Simonsohn had uncovered another case that hadn’t been made official yet.

According to today’s story, Sanna has asked the editor of the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology — which is also retracting one of Smeesters’ papers — to retract three papers published from 2009 to 2011. These are the three he seems to have published there during that time: Continue reading University of Michigan psychologist resigns following concerns by statistical sleuth Simonsohn: Nature