Ulrich Lichtenthaler, who has already retracted five papers for statistical irregularities, has retracted a sixth, “The Impact of Accumulating and Reactivating Technological Experience on R&D Alliance Performance,” in the Journal of Management Studies. The notice, which was first reported by the Open Innovation Blog, reads: Continue reading Retraction six arrives for Ulrich Lichtenthaler
Scientists frustrated by the so-called “third reviewer” — the one always asking for additional experiments before recommending acceptance — might be forgiven for having fantasies of being able to review their own papers.
But one Korean scientist, Hyung-In Moon, managed to do just that, through what must have seemed like clever subterfuge at the time. And he got away with it for a while — until he didn’t, as witnessed by this retraction notice for “Larvicidal activity of 4-hydroxycoumarin derivatives against Aedes aegypti,” published in Pharmaceutical Biology, an Informa Healthcare title: Continue reading South Korean plant compound researcher faked email addresses so he could review his own studies
The retraction count for management professor Ulrich Lichtenthaler, whose work has been subject to scrutiny for statistical irregularities, is up to five. Here’s the notice for “Product business, foreign direct investment, and licensing: Examining their relationships in international technology exploitation,” in the Journal of World Business: Continue reading Retraction number five for management professor Ulrich Lichtenthaler
Laurence Klotz, a prominent urologist at the University of Toronto who studies the prostate specific antigen (PSA), has corrected a paper after reusing his own words from an earlier review.
Here’s the correction, from the Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO): Continue reading Duplication earns highly cited prostate cancer researcher a correction in JCO
One of the important questions when it comes to retractions is, what happens to retracted papers? How do readers find out they’re retracted? There’s evidence they are cited less often, but that when they are cited, the vast majority of the time it’s as if they were never retracted.
So with all of that in mind, Phil Davis, an independent researcher and publishing consultant, set out to find Continue reading What happens to copies of retracted papers on non-publisher websites (eg PubMed Central)?
Although he’s in no danger of breaking the current record of 172 likely retractions, Diederik Stapel now has 20 to his, um, credit.
The September 2012 issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology features these seven: Continue reading And then there were 20: Diederik Stapel retraction count keeps growing
A paper about an alleged cheetah fossil from the Pliocene epoch, dogged by questions since its publication in 2008, has been retracted after one of the authors acknowledged it wasn’t what they thought it was.
Here’s the notice for the paper, “A primitive Late Pliocene cheetah, and evolution of the cheetah lineage:” Continue reading Author retracts PNAS paper about alleged Pliocene cheetah fossil that critics said was a fake
Anil Potti, the former Duke cancer researcher who has now retracted or corrected 18 papers amidst investigations into his work, is now working at a Grand Forks, North Dakota, cancer center.
The Grand Forks Herald reports that Potti has worked at the Cancer Center of North Dakota since May. His new boss, William Noyes, told the paper that Continue reading Anil Potti resurfaces with job at North Dakota cancer center
Today’s Retraction Watch, to paraphrase Sesame Street, is brought to you by the number 13.
Earlier, we reported on several retractions from Diederik Stapel that bring his total to that number, and now we’ve learned about number 13 for Dipak Das. Das is of course the UConn researcher who was found to have committed 145 counts of misconduct in his studies of the red wine compound resveratrol and other subjects.
Here’s the notice, from The Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry, for “Resveratrol, a unique phytoalexin present in red wine, delivers either survival signal or death signal to the ischemic myocardium depending on dose:” Continue reading Seeing red (wine): Another retraction for Dipak Das, making count 13
The retraction count is up to 13 for Dutch psychology fraudster Diederik Stapel, with four more in the publications the Journal of Consumer Research, Motivation & Emotion, Psychology & Marketing, and Social Cognition.
Here are the notices: Continue reading We’re up to 13: Retractions keep coming for Diederik Stapel