Category: basic life sciences retractions

Cut and paste and a PC crash: figure manipulations sink two papers

jnc

Two papers by an overlapping group of researchers in Italy have been retracted for manipulated figures.

In late 2013, perennial tipster Clare Francis sent their concerns about several papers, including the two that have been retracted, by authors who frequently publish together. One of the papers, in the Journal of Neurochemistry, is from a team led by Ferdinando Nicoletti; four other papers from the group have been criticized on PubPeer for image manipulation, which he addressed via email with us.

The second retracted paper, from the Journal of Immunology, has shares one author with the first: Patrizia Di Iorio of the University of Chieti, though according to Nicoletti she had no role in preparing the figures.

Here’s the April 2014 notice for “Neuroprotection mediated by glial group-II metabotropic glutamate receptors requires the activation of the MAP kinase and the phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase pathways” in the Journal of Neurochemistry. It’s behind a paywall, but the journal has assured us this is against policy and they will be fixing it shortly:
Continue reading Cut and paste and a PC crash: figure manipulations sink two papers

Prominent geneticist nets retraction, two corrections, and a lot of questions

David Latchman, Birkbeck
David Latchman

A team led by David Latchman, a geneticist and administrator at University College London, has notched a mysterious retraction in the Journal of Biological Chemistry, and has had 25 more papers questioned on PubPeer.

The JBC notice for “Antiapoptotic activity of the free caspase recruitment domain of procaspase-9: A novel endogenous rescue pathway in cell death” is as useless as they come, a regular occurrence for the journal: Continue reading Prominent geneticist nets retraction, two corrections, and a lot of questions

Franken-paper from U.S. federal contractor heads to the grave

Image via Insomnia Cured Here.
Image via Insomnia Cured Here.

Hindawi journal PPAR Research has pulled a cancer immunology paper after discovering it contained almost no new information.

Instead, it was a Frankenstein-style stitch job, containing sentences ripped from 33 different papers. 18 of those ended up in the citations; for 15 more, the authors didn’t even do them that courtesy. You can see a meticulously color-coded call out here.

Here’s the notice for “A Role for PPARy in the Regulation of Cytokines in Immune Cells and Cancer”: Continue reading Franken-paper from U.S. federal contractor heads to the grave

Oklahoma postdoc admits to faking data in grant application, submitted paper

bin kang
Bin Kang

A postdoc at the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation faked data in a submitted paper and in a grant application, according to a new report from the Office of Research Integrity.

Bin Kang admitted to the misconduct, in which he Continue reading Oklahoma postdoc admits to faking data in grant application, submitted paper

Fat cell paper earns unusually detailed retraction

jcbA pair of cell biologists have taken responsibility for extensive figure errors that scuttled their paper in the Journal of Cell Biology.

While there were five authors, first and last authors Eva Szabo and Michal Opas took responsibility in the notice. A number of figures “contain incorrect data and/or presentation errors,” and the original data isn’t available for verification. The notice is unusually clear about which figures and data are compromised.

The paper was published in 2008, and retracted on January 12, 2015. It has been cited 32 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

Here’s the notice for “Calreticulin inhibits commitment to adipocyte differentiation’: Continue reading Fat cell paper earns unusually detailed retraction

Drug company lawyer letter results in “utterly tedious” retraction

Image via Intropen
Image via Intropen

What’s in a name?

Well, if it’s the same name as a treatment with nearly $1 billion in sales per year in the U.S., a retraction.

A “mind numbingly boring one,” that is.

Here’s the Twin Research and Human Genetics notice for “EpiPen: An R Package to Investigate Two-Locus Epistatic Models”: Continue reading Drug company lawyer letter results in “utterly tedious” retraction

Leading diabetes researcher corrects paper as more than a dozen studies are questioned on PubPeer

maelder
Kathrin Maedler

Prominent German diabetes researcher Kathrin Maedler has issued corrections on two papers, and told Retraction Watch she is in the process of defending the data on others.

14 of her papers have been critiqued by PubPeer commenters. The commentary, which spans from her graduate work in 2002 to a 2014 publication in Nature Medicine, includes questions about image manipulation and self-plagiarism.

Laborjournal’s blog (we have a column in their English-language publication) first flagged these suspicions in July 2014, after being approached by pseudonymous Clare Francis.

Here’s a comparison between figures in Maedler’s 2009 PLoS One paper, “Deletion of the Mitochondrial Flavoprotein Apoptosis Inducing Factor (AIF) Induces β-Cell Apoptosis and Impairs β-Cell Mass,” and one she co-authored in 2006 in Diabetes, “Low concentration of interleukin-1beta induces FLICE-inhibitory protein-mediated beta-cell proliferation in human pancreatic islets,” via PubPeer:  Continue reading Leading diabetes researcher corrects paper as more than a dozen studies are questioned on PubPeer

PLOS Genetics investigating paper by Ariel Fernandez

Ariel Fernandez, via Wikipedia
Ariel Fernandez, via Wikipedia

Ariel Fernandez‘s list of papers with editorial asterisks next to them grew again this week.

Fernandez has had one paper retracted, two papers subject to Expressions of Concern, including one from Nature, and another put on hold over data concerns. He threatened to sue us for covering one of the Expressions of Concern.

Here’s the “Notice from PLOS Genetics” for “Protein Under-Wrapping Causes Dosage Sensitivity and Decreases Gene Duplicability:”

Please be advised that PLOS is working with the authors on an investigation regarding one or more issues that have been raised with respect to the content or authorship of this paper.

We asked Fernandez for more details. He did not provide any, saying only that the criticisms of the work “have no scientific value” because they were made anonymously: Continue reading PLOS Genetics investigating paper by Ariel Fernandez

Stem cell study retraction produces useless notice

int j stem cellsWe don’t have much to go on here, for a retraction from the International Journal of Stem Cells. 

Here’s what we do know: Dental researchers at several universities in Egypt, including Cairo University, Future University, and Misr University published a paper together. According to the article, they gave dogs oral ulcers and then injected the ulcers with either fat-derived stem cells, bone marrow stem cells, or saline. The researchers conclude that the fat stem cells, also known as adipose derived stem cells, helped the dogs heal.

Unfortunately, we have no idea what went wrong, because the retraction notice is useless. Here in its entirety is the notice for “Adipose Stem Cells as Alternatives for Bone Marrow Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Oral Ulcer Healing”: Continue reading Stem cell study retraction produces useless notice

Nature Cell Biology insulin paper retracted over antibody problems

nature cell biologyA Nature Cell Biology article on insulin regulation has been retracted after scientists noted that the antibodies used in their research were not as specific as they had previously believed.

The notice is clear on the problems with the science, which together “call into question the main conclusions of the paper.” Three of the paper’s five authors were employed at Novartis at the time of publication.

Here’s the notice for “Wolfram syndrome 1 and adenylyl cyclase 8 interact at the plasma membrane to regulate insulin production and secretion”: Continue reading Nature Cell Biology insulin paper retracted over antibody problems