Category:

Cancer researcher logs 5th retraction

Journal of Mammary Gland Biology and NeoplasiaA cancer researcher has added a fifth retraction to his name — but the notice doesn’t mention any problems with the paper itself. 

Rather, the Journal of Mammary Gland Biology and Neoplasia decided to retract the paper because it referenced other papers that had been retracted as a result of data manipulation.

The notice doesn’t specify which references were problematic, but the list includes three papers that are now retracted; all three include Scott Valastyan (the sole author of the newly retracted paper) as first author, and two list Robert Weinberg, his former supervisor and prominent cancer researcher, as last author.

Continue reading Cancer researcher logs 5th retraction

He’s back: Data faker Diederik Stapel will support research at vocational university

Diederik Stapel
Diederik Stapel

Diederik Stapel, the social psychology researcher who has had 58 papers retracted after admitting that he made up the data, has a new job: helping other researchers.

Stapel, according to BN DeStem (via Google Translate), Continue reading He’s back: Data faker Diederik Stapel will support research at vocational university

Retraction appears for group whose former member was sanctioned by ORI

Journal of Biological ChemistryResearchers whose former colleague was recently reprimanded by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) have retracted a biology paper for duplication.

The retraction includes some familiar names: The last author Steven Grant, senior author of the newly retracted study, is also the last author of 11 papers flagged in a report by the ORI in December, 2015. That report focused on Girija Dasmahapatra, a co-author of the 11 studies who was also based at at Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU). Dasmahapatra left VCU in 2015, and is not listed on the latest retraction.

The retracted paper, published in The Journal of Biological Chemistry (JBC), was also co-authored by Paul Dent, a biochemist at the VCU, who we mentioned last year when he offered to retract another paper in Molecular Pharmacology after concerns arose on PubPeer. The journal has instead issued a lengthy correction (what we call a “mega-correction”).

A VCU spokesperson told us:
Continue reading Retraction appears for group whose former member was sanctioned by ORI

A plagiarism loop: Authors copied from papers that had copied from others

2Note to self: If you’re going to duplicate your own work, don’t copy from papers that plagiarize others’ research.

Just such a mistake has cost a PhD candidate three papers — although his co-author argues that a company is in part to blame.

Hossein Jafarzadeh, who is studying mechanical engineering at the University of Tehran, apparently asked a company to complete photomicroscopy for his work. Instead of doing to the work, the company provided him with an image taken from another paper, according to Karen Abrinia, his co-author, who is based at the same institution.

That’s the explanation that Abrinia gave when we asked about three retractions that the pair share, at least.

What the notices tell us is a little more convoluted. Plagiarized material from two different papers ended up in two different papers by the pair. Then, the researchers copied from their own papers in a third paper. (We’re unclear if Abrinia attributes every step of the mess to a company or not. Confused yet?) 

Continue reading A plagiarism loop: Authors copied from papers that had copied from others

Weekend reads: Elsevier’s “stupid patent of the month;” how Republicans and Democrats retract; hospital apologizes for published case report

booksThe week at Retraction Watch featured a shooting by a researcher fired for misconduct, and the creation of fake computer-generated peer reviews. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Elsevier’s “stupid patent of the month;” how Republicans and Democrats retract; hospital apologizes for published case report

Here’s why more than 50,000 psychology studies are about to have PubPeer entries

pubpeerPubPeer will see a surge of more than 50,000 entries for psychology studies in the next few weeks as part of an initiative that aims to identify statistical mistakes in academic literature.

The detection process uses the algorithm “statcheck” — which we’ve covered previously in a guest post by one of its co-developers — to scan just under 700,000 results from the large sample of psychology studies. Although the trends in Hartgerink’s present data are yet to be explored, his previous research suggests that around half of psychology papers have at least one statistical error, and one in eight have mistakes that affect their statistical conclusions. In the current effort, regardless of whether any mistakes are found, the results from the checks are then posted to PubPeer, and authors are alerted through an email.

Till now, the initiative is one of the biggest large-scale post-publication peer review efforts of its kind. Some researchers are, however, concerned about its current process of detecting potential mistakes, particularly the fact that potentially stigmatizing entries are created even if no errors are found. Continue reading Here’s why more than 50,000 psychology studies are about to have PubPeer entries

We’ve seen computer-generated fake papers get published. Now we have computer-generated fake peer reviews.

Eric Medvet
Eric Medvet

Retraction Watch readers may recall that in 2014, publisher Springer and IEEE were forced to retract more than 120 conference proceedings because the papers were all fakes, written by the devilishly clever SCIgen program and somehow published after peer review. So perhaps it was inevitable that fake computer-generated peer reviews were next.

In a chapter called “Your Paper has been Accepted, Rejected, or Whatever: Automatic Generation of Scientific Paper Reviews,” a group of researchers at the University of Trieste “investigate the feasibility of a tool capable of generating fake reviews for a given scientific paper automatically.” And 30% of the time, people couldn’t tell the difference. “While a tool of this kind cannot possibly deceive any rigorous editorial procedure,” the authors conclude, “it could nevertheless find a role in several questionable scenarios and magnify the scale of scholarly frauds.”

We spoke to one of the chapter’s authors, Eric Medvet, by email.

Retraction Watch: In the paper, you test the feasibility of computer-generated fake peer reviews. Why? Continue reading We’ve seen computer-generated fake papers get published. Now we have computer-generated fake peer reviews.

Embezzlement, 15 retractions, and a whistleblower could add up to trouble for Duke

scienceRetraction Watch readers may recall the case of Erin Potts-Kant, who pled guilty to embezzling funds from a lab, and now has 15 retractions, and Michael Foster, both formerly of Duke. You may also remember that we’ve featured discussions of the False Claims Act, which some attorneys are trying to use to expose wrongdoing — and earn large settlements for whistleblowers in the process.

It turns out those two threads are intertwined, as we learned only last month when a federal court case against Potts-Kant, Foster, and Duke was unsealed last month. (False Claims Act cases are frequently sealed when initially filed, with big penalties for anyone — including the attorneys — who talk about them, which is why we didn’t know of this link before.) In today’s Science, as part of our new partnership, we tell the story in a lot more detail, and describe the potential ramifications for Duke and other universities.

The whistleblower in the Duke case is named Continue reading Embezzlement, 15 retractions, and a whistleblower could add up to trouble for Duke

Professor forced to retire after threatening co-author

jialalI-bio
Ishwarlal “Kenny” Jialal

As the University of California Davis is reeling from the resignation of Chancellor Linda Katehi over alleged ethical violations, we’ve learned of more drama at the school: The fallout from a single retraction back in 2012 pushed one UC Davis professor into early retirement this summer without professor emeritus status.

What’s more, a UC Davis committee had recommended that former professor Ishwarlal “Kenny” Jialal retire early but maintain his professor emeritus status, and Katehi overruled that decision, deciding to strip Jialal of any future emeritus status.

Here’s the story: Jialal was found innocent of any research misconduct after Nutrition Reviews journal editors found portions of a 2008 review paper contained writing from the Linus Pauling Institute website, according to an internal investigation. However, after the first author — former postdoc Uma Singh, now an adjunct professor at Valencia College in Orlando — admitted to plagiarizing a passage, the investigation found Jialal sent her threatening emails in reaction to the perceived smear of the retraction on his reputation.

For instance, Continue reading Professor forced to retire after threatening co-author

The story of an errant cylinder has been used for decades as a cautionary lab tale. But is it true?

CrucibleIn 1969, an entertaining tale of an errant cylinder was published in a pharmaceutical company’s internal newsletter.

According to the story, a bunch of painters took six 220-cubic foot gas cylinders off their off their wall supports and put them to the side to allow the painting of an area. A painter, who was trying to scoot one of the cylinder across the floor, realized that it was leaking gas. But before he could do anything, he found himself being jet-propelled across the construction site. 

The amusing story has spread through safety circles and the academic literature, appearing in the Journal of Chemical Education, which is published by the American Chemical Society, in  June 1976. But does the account contain any element of truth?

It turns out that’s quite unclear.  Continue reading The story of an errant cylinder has been used for decades as a cautionary lab tale. But is it true?