Two crystallographers who retracted a Structure paper last year have retracted a study about a similar subject in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, for similar reasons.
Here’s the notice for the paper, which has been cited 23 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge: Continue reading PNAS retraction marks second for crystallography group
Following an investigation by the State University of New York (SUNY) Upstate into the work of one of its neuroscientists, the Journal of Neurochemistry has retracted a 2007 paper.
The retraction notice is quite clear about why the paper is being withdrawn: Continue reading Journal of Neurochemistry retracts paper after SUNY Upstate medical school finds evidence of fraud
The authors of a paper in the Journal of Biological Chemistry (JBC) have retracted it, but don’t ask us why.
This being the JBC, the retraction notice for “Human T-cell Leukemia Virus Type I Tax Down-regulates the Expression of Phosphatidylinositol 3,4,5-Trisphosphate Inositol Phosphatases via the NF-κB Pathway” is the very definition of opaque: Continue reading Mysterious retraction in the Journal of Biological Chemistry for Takashi Tsuji’s group
Today, without us having planned it, has become the day of retracted papers that found a new home.
This morning, we posted an item about a chimp “culture” paper that was retracted from Biology Letters after its authors found some errors, and then published, with corrections, in the Journal of Human Evolution. This afternoon, we bring you the news of a PLoS ONE paper on longevity genes that is the corrected version of a Science paper retracted last year: Continue reading Sebastiani and Perls longevity genes work finds a new home in PLoS ONE following Science retraction
The authors of a 2011 paper claiming that chimp “culture” has more to do with local habitats than with where the chimps live have retracted it after finding mistakes in their work.
Here’s the notice for the paper, “Variation in chimpanzee ‘culture’ is predicted by local ecology, not geography:” Continue reading Chimp ‘culture’ paper retracted after authors spot errors, now has home at another journal
It’s no secret that it can be difficult to find negative results in the scientific literature. For a variety of reasons, positive publication bias is a real phenomenon. In clinical medicine, that can paint a more optimistic picture of a field than is actually the case. And in basic science, it can mean other scientists may repeat experiments that have already failed.
But the new Journal of Errology, yet to be launched, wants to be a home for experiments that didn’t work out. If it’s successful, it might mean a place where researchers could publish results that don’t look great, without feeling the need to make them look any better — a strategy that can lead to retractions.
BioFlukes, the journal’s Bangalore, India-based publishers, have ambitious goals, according to the company’s Mahboob Imtiyaz: Continue reading Your experiment didn’t work out? The Journal of Errology wants to hear from you
Last week, we brought you the tale of a paper about camels that was rejected on submission, but published accidentally, and then retracted. It turns out this was not a unique occurrence.
An eagle-eyed Retraction Watch reader emailed us about another such paper, this one in the Journal of Nanoparticle Research. The study, “Growth of gold flowers on polyacrylonitrile fibers,” appears to have been published online on December 3, 2008. It now sports this retraction notice: Continue reading Another paper rejected, mistakenly published, then retracted, this one in nanotechnology journal
In the wake of the massive allegations of fraud by resveratrol researcher Dipak Das, other researchers in the field are clearly trying to distance themselves from the University of Connecticut scientist. Nir Barzilai told us yesterday, for example, that despite Das seemingly’ impressive publication record, “Rome was not built on Dr. Das.”
Harvard’s David Sinclair went further, telling The New York Times that he didn’t know who Das was: Continue reading So how peripheral was Dipak Das’ resveratrol work, really?
In our 2011 year-end post, we promised to keep
…an eye on what may be an emerging trend: The mega-correction. We’ve seen errata notices that correct so many different errors, it’s hard to believe the paper shouldn’t have been retracted. It’s unclear what this means yet, but watch this space for coverage of more examples.
We’ve found another example in the Journal of Cell Science, “Immunobiology of naïve and genetically modified HLA-class-I-knockdown human embryonic stem cells,” originally published in September 2011. The correction begins with what turns out to be a bit of an understatement: Continue reading A mega-correction, but no retraction, in the Journal of Cell Science
One of the most contentious issues in scholarly publishing is authorship. Sometimes there’s forgery involved, but most of the time the tension is more mundane but also more pernicious: Researchers who did most of the work wondering why “honorary” authors suddenly appear on papers, or wondering why their own names didn’t appear.
Journals, it would seem, are a good bulwark against such abuses. And many have subscribed to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ (ICMJE) Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts, which include these requirements for authorship: Continue reading How good are journals at policing authorship?