Author: Ivan Oransky

Confusion as JNCI yanks press release on embargoed breast density-cancer study after authors see error

An unusual note went out to reporters on the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (JNCI) press list yesterday:

Please disregard this MTM, which was sent out on Friday June 29, 2012.  The data in the study changed so we are no longer putting out a press release for the study.

The original release was headlined:

Percent Density May Be As Strong a Risk Factor as Variation in Breast Density for Breast Cancer

MTM stands for “memo to the media.” What wasn’t clear was whether the new notice meant the release was being pulled back, or the study itself, but the JNCI press office said it was just the release.

But the Mayo Clinic’s Celine Vachon told Retraction Watch: Continue reading Confusion as JNCI yanks press release on embargoed breast density-cancer study after authors see error

Journal of Neuroscience retracts federally funded Canadian study with “substantial data misrepresentation”

The Journal of Neuroscience is retracting a paper by researchers at Memorial University in Newfoundland, Canada, after a university investigation found “substantial data misrepresentation” in the work, which was funded by two major federal agencies.

Here’s the notice: Continue reading Journal of Neuroscience retracts federally funded Canadian study with “substantial data misrepresentation”

One year later, transcendental meditation study yanked minutes before publication still under review

A paper looking at the use of transcendental meditation to reduce the risk of heart disease, and that was put on hold just 12 minutes before its scheduled publication time, is still under review a year later.

On June 29 of last year, we brought you the news of the highly unusual — if not unprecedented — occurrence at the Archives of Internal Medicine. As we wrote then: Continue reading One year later, transcendental meditation study yanked minutes before publication still under review

ORI finds Parkinson’s-pesticides researcher guilty of faking data; two papers to be retracted

The U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has found that a neuroscientist who studied the effects of pesticides on a mouse model of Parkinson’s disease made up data.

As The Scientist reported on Friday, the ORI found that Mona Thiruchelvam faked cell counts in two grant applications and a number of papers that claimed to show how the pesticides paraquat, maneb, and atrazine might affect parts of the brain involved in Parkinson’s. The Scientist notes: Continue reading ORI finds Parkinson’s-pesticides researcher guilty of faking data; two papers to be retracted

Authors retract PLoS Medicine foreign health aid paper that had criticized earlier Lancet study

On May 8, PLoS Medicine published a paper by Rajaie Batniji and Eran Bendavid of Stanford University, about “whether development assistance for health provided to developing country governments increases health expenditures.”

That paper caught the eye of the Center for Global Development’s David Roodman. He began a May 14 blog post about the study, “The Health Aid Fungibility Debate: Don’t Believe Either Side,” as follows: Continue reading Authors retract PLoS Medicine foreign health aid paper that had criticized earlier Lancet study

So what should happen to scientific papers that are proven wrong?

There’s been a lively discussion at Jeff Perkel’s guest post from this morning, “Should Linus Pauling’s erroneous 1953 model of DNA be retracted?” Most of our commenters say “no.” Some of those “nos” are quite emphatic, suggesting that Retraction Watch should brush up on epistemology, or that this was a silly question to begin with.

We appreciate all the feedback, of course, and thought this would be a good opportunity to expand the answers a bit from “yes” and “no” — which a few commenters have begun doing. So we’re posting this poll about what should happen to papers such as Pauling’s that are proven to be wrong, knowing that they continue to be cited as if they had no significant flaws. (Pauling’s, as Perkel pointed out, was actually wrong about at least one thing even when it was published, but leave that aside for these purposes.) Vote here: Continue reading So what should happen to scientific papers that are proven wrong?

Author whose duplications forced Cell correction retracts paper on Down syndrome

Sebastian Schuchmann, a neuroscience researcher whose duplication errors led to a Cell correction last year, has retracted a 12-year-old paper in the Journal of Neurochemistry whose figures were copied from two of his earlier papers.

Here’s the notice: Continue reading Author whose duplications forced Cell correction retracts paper on Down syndrome

Following investigation, Erasmus social psychology professor retracts two studies, resigns

Dirk Smeesters

The social psychology community, already rocked last year by the Diederik Stapel scandal, now has another set of allegations to dissect. Dirk Smeesters, a professor of consumer behavior and society at the Rotterdam School of Management, part of Erasmus University, has resigned amid serious questions about his work.

According to an Erasmus press release, a scientific integrity committee found that the results in two of Smeesters’ papers were statistically highly unlikely. Smeesters could not produce the raw data behind the findings, and told the committee that he cherry-picked the data to produce a statistically significant result. Those two papers are being retracted, and the university accepted Smeesters’ resignation on June 21.

The release also takes pains to say that the university has no reason to doubt the work of his co-authors. You can read the complete report in Dutch, with Smeesters’ co-authors’ names blacked out, in an NRC Handelsblad story.

Erasmus tells Retraction Watch that these are the two papers being retracted: Continue reading Following investigation, Erasmus social psychology professor retracts two studies, resigns

Three more retractions for weight loss surgeon Edward Shang for making up data

Edward Shang, the weight loss surgeon who lost his job at the University of Leipzig in May after it was revealed that he had made up most, if not all, of the patients in his research studies at the University of Mannheim, has retracted three more papers.

Here’s the notice, which is a bit, um, lean, given what we know about the case: Continue reading Three more retractions for weight loss surgeon Edward Shang for making up data

Updated: Ski resort paper hits a (media) mogul and gets retracted

With temperatures at Retraction Watch’s New York HQ threatening to break 100 degrees today — that’s nearly 38 degrees Celsius for those of you in the rest of the world — what better way to take our minds off the heat than by writing about than skiing?

Lucky for us, the author of a paper in the Journal of Maps about new ways to create ski resort maps — aka the “Breckenridge schematic map” — has retracted it. Here’s the notice: Continue reading Updated: Ski resort paper hits a (media) mogul and gets retracted