The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology has retracted a 2009 abstract, but don’t ask us why. The retraction notice for “Children with asthma and no URTI, more commonly have rhinovirus in their exhaled breath, than in mucous,” is another one we’ll file under “opaque“: Continue reading A mysterious retraction in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
Author: Ivan Oransky
University of East London “looking into” Jatinder Ahluwalia’s career
We’re continuing to follow the case of Jatinder Ahluwalia. As we reported on Tuesday, Ahluwalia was dismissed from graduate school at the University of Cambridge years before a University College London (UCL) investigation found had renumbered files to deceive a co-author, and had likely sabotaged his colleagues’ work while manipulating his solutions to improve how his results looked. The results of that investigation came to light as part of a Nature retraction.
Ahluwalia now works — and studies plagiarism, in fact — at the school of health and bioscience at the University of East London. We asked Neville Punchard, the school’s dean, whether the university was aware of Ahluwalia’s past. Punchard replied by email: Continue reading University of East London “looking into” Jatinder Ahluwalia’s career
Scandinavian Journal of Immunology publishes Bulfone-Paus retraction notice
Last week, we reported that the Scandinavian Journal of Immunology had noted that a 2002 paper by Silvia Bulfone-Paus and colleagues had been retracted, but hadn’t yet published the retraction notice. A commenter tipped us off this week that the notice is out: Continue reading Scandinavian Journal of Immunology publishes Bulfone-Paus retraction notice
Exclusive: Researcher found guilty of misconduct at UCL had been dismissed from Cambridge for data fabrication
Here at Retraction Watch, we’ve been following the case of Jatinder Ahluwalia with interest. You may recall that an investigation by University College London (UCL) found “beyond reasonable doubt” that Ahluwalia had renumbered files to deceive a co-author. UCL was also “highly confident” that Ahluwalia had messed with his solutions to make his results look better, and sabotaged his colleagues’ work. The report of that investigation was part of a Nature retraction notice.
We’ve now learned that UCL was not the first scene of misconduct by Ahluwalia. Yesterday, we obtained letters by University of Cambridge faculty and administrators describing repeated — and in the words of of one professor, amateurish — data fabrication by Ahluwalia that led to his dismissal from the university’s graduate program.
In a letter dated November 10, 1997, Martin Brand, then Ahluwalia’s PhD advisor, wrote: Continue reading Exclusive: Researcher found guilty of misconduct at UCL had been dismissed from Cambridge for data fabrication
“Biologist realizes he’s been studying Cadbury egg”: Mislabeled bottle leads to Phys Rev B retraction
The quote in the title of this post is a potential Onion headline that didn’t make it into print. It was part of an episode of This American Life that aired last week, and it seemed apropos, even though the subject here is superconductors rather than biology.
After all, we’ve written about a retraction that resulted from ordering the wrong mice. Today, we bring you the tale of a retraction caused by a mislabeled bottle. According to a retraction notice that appeared online last month in Physical Review B: Continue reading “Biologist realizes he’s been studying Cadbury egg”: Mislabeled bottle leads to Phys Rev B retraction
Three more Bulfone-Paus retraction notices out, in Journal of Immunology
The retraction notices for papers by Silvia Bulfone-Paus continue to appear. Yesterday, the Journal of Immunology posted notices for these three previously accepted retractions by the researcher, work at whose Borstel Centre lab is under investigation for misconduct.
- The IL-15 receptor alpha chain signals through association with Syk in human B cells (2001, cited 58 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge): Continue reading Three more Bulfone-Paus retraction notices out, in Journal of Immunology
In retraction notice, Bulfone-Paus “declares” data and conclusions confirmed; journals accept six more retractions
There was more news today about papers co-authored by Silvia Bulfone-Paus, whose lab at Research Centre Borstel has been under investigation for scientific misconduct.
The EMBO Journal, which we reported last month had accepted the retraction of a 2005 Bulfone-Paus paper that has been cited 37 times, published the retraction notice for the study today:
Eight of the authors (ZO, LT, UM, PB, CB, DA, RP and SB-P) wish to retract this paper, following an independent formal investigation initiated by the Research Center Borstel into scientific misconduct (see http://www.fz-borstel.de/cms/index.php?id=1). The investigation concluded that multiple figures contained PCR and western blot duplications and possible other manipulations (Figures 2A, 3A, 4A, 5, 7A and 7C, Supplementary Figures S1A, S2A and S2B, unconfirmed: Figure 1C). The above signed declare that Vadim Budagian and Elena Bulanova conducted these experiments and generated the figures. The authors declare that key experiments presented in the majority of these figures were recently reproduced and that the results confirmed the experimental data and the conclusions drawn from them. However, due to these unacceptable irregularities, the listed authors retract this paper in its entirety and regret any adverse consequences that may have resulted from its publication. Vadim Budagian and Elena Bulanova declined to sign the retraction.
As retraction notices go, this is better than average, we must say. It’s certainly better than the many opaque notices we’ve seen. But there’s a line in there that Karin Wiebauer and David Hardman, both of whom brought the notice to our attention, found curious: Continue reading In retraction notice, Bulfone-Paus “declares” data and conclusions confirmed; journals accept six more retractions
No Potti retractions on the horizon from JAMA, NEJM
With the third retraction of a paper by Anil Potti this weekend, plus details of various investigations dribbling out, we decided to check in with the world’s two leading medical journals about whether they planned to retract the papers of Potti’s they’d published.
JAMA published two papers by Potti and colleagues: One, “Gene Expression Signatures, Clinicopathological Features, and Individualized Therapy in Breast Cancer,” appeared in 2008. It has been cited 51 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge, and was the subject of two letters. In one, a correspondent expressed concerns about the lack of information in the study about Continue reading No Potti retractions on the horizon from JAMA, NEJM
Lancet Oncology retracts previously questioned Anil Potti paper
Early in December, as the house of cards that is Anil Potti‘s publication record started to really collapse, we called attention to a paper in The Lancet Oncology that had already been the subject of a correction and Expression of Concern in July of last year. Today, the journal officially retracted the paper, “Validation of gene signatures that predict the response of breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a substudy of the EORTC 10994/BIG 00-01 clinical trial.” The paper was cited more than 100 times, according to Google Scholar.
The retraction notice: Continue reading Lancet Oncology retracts previously questioned Anil Potti paper
How should authors mark retracted papers on their CVs? Compare a chronic Lyme doctor with one from the Mayo
Soon after Retraction Watch launched, one of our readers posed an important question: How should researchers note that their papers have been retracted?
The question is important mostly for transparency reasons. (We’ve also wondered, however, whether authors whose papers have been retracted because of journal office errors should be forced to list those.) Should they remove any reference to retracted papers? Leave them, but mark them as retracted?
With that in mind, two examples. Continue reading How should authors mark retracted papers on their CVs? Compare a chronic Lyme doctor with one from the Mayo