Category:

Prostate cancer paper flagged by ORI is retracted following PETA prompt

cover_issue_129_en_USA federal investigation into a paper on prostate cancer has now led to a retraction. In an unusual twist, it happened following a request from the animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

In January, the Office of Research Integrity reported that corresponding author Dong Xiao “intentionally fabricated data” in an Oncotarget study of how a steroid inhibits the growth of prostate cancer. Xiao, a former cancer researcher at the University of Pittsburgh, claimed that he had tumor data from more mice than he did, and falsified several figures.

In July, after no sign of the retraction, a researcher at PETA followed up with the journal, Oncotarget, on behalf of the organization “and our more than 3 million members and supporters to request the immediate retraction.”

Last month, they received a reply from the publisher, which they forwarded to us:

Continue reading Prostate cancer paper flagged by ORI is retracted following PETA prompt

Mega-correction for “empirical anomalies” in management paper

The Academy of Management JournalThe author of a paper that looked at how the geographical spread of research and development sites has impacted innovation has posted a four-page list of corrections that fixed “empirical anomalies” in the paper.

A group of PhD students raised concerns about the paper’s findings, according to the editor-in-chief of The Academy of Management Journal, Gerard George. The journal formed a committee that worked with the author to reproduce the results. That ended with a correction to two of the paper’s three hypotheses, and corresponding parts of the text.

The four-page notice — (the details of which are paywalled, unfortunately) — includes notes from the journal’s editor and the author:

Continue reading Mega-correction for “empirical anomalies” in management paper

Weekend reads: Angry meta-analysts; imposter cell lines; when things go wrong

booksThis week at Retraction Watch featured nine more fake peer review retractions, this time from Elsevier, and an update to the retraction count for one-time record holder Joachim Boldt. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Angry meta-analysts; imposter cell lines; when things go wrong

Former ob-gyn prof notches ninth retraction; investigation still underway

Nasser Chegini
Nasser Chegini

A retired obstetrics and gynecology professor under federal investigation for misconduct has notched his ninth retraction.

The latest retraction stems from an investigation by the University of Florida, where Nasser Chegini worked until 2012, which found fabricated data in three figures in a paper on the muscle cells that line the uterus.

The paper, “Differential expression of microRNAs in myometrium and leiomyomas and regulation by ovarian steroids,” was published in The Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine. It’s been cited 74 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

Here’s the note:

Continue reading Former ob-gyn prof notches ninth retraction; investigation still underway

“Insufficient permission” from funder resects liver disease paper

HepatologyA study on chronic liver inflammation was pulled from the journal Hepatology because of “insufficient permission by the authors’ funding institution to submit and publish the manuscript.” 

The paper, which was published in July, looked into how steatosis, the abnormal retention of fat in the liver, turns into steatohepatitis, also known as fatty liver disease. Researchers found that Treg cells play a central role in controlling the disease.

Unfortunately, the journal’s managing editor didn’t provide any information about the nature of the permission problems, and the notice doesn’t give any details.

Here it is, in full:

Continue reading “Insufficient permission” from funder resects liver disease paper

Activist group retracts warnings about midwest oil wells

downloadAfter receiving additional data from the government, an activist group has retracted an analysis that suggested energy companies were not taking steps to cut back on a controversial practice.

The Bakken analysis — named for North Dakota’s gigantic underground deposit of oil and natural gas — was published by the Environmental Law and Policy Center (ELPC). It focused on a practice known as “gas flaring” — burning natural gas instead of using or selling it. The analysis, released last month, found that hundreds of wells in North Dakota had not filed the necessary plans for saving excess gas produced in the course of extracting oil from wells. But after the Department of Mineral Resources provided more data — we’re not sure what kind of data, specifically — the ELPC retracted that conclusion.

The group posted the retraction notice on September 25, just four days after they presented the analysis at a news conference. It states why their recent evaluation of companies’ plans to capture excess gas might be wrong — and what they’re doing next:

Continue reading Activist group retracts warnings about midwest oil wells

Failure to reproduce key experiments retracts cancer study

Medical OncologyA group of Chinese cancer researchers has retracted a paper in Medical Oncology after they discovered that “several key experiments” were not reproducible.

The paper, “Decreased Warburg effect induced by ATP citrate lyase suppression inhibits tumor growth in pancreatic cancer,” was published in March. It found that suppressing the enzyme ATP citrate lyase could be used to treat pancreatic cancer.

However, the authors decided to pull the paper when some of the findings couldn’t be reproduced. 

Here’s the notice:

Continue reading Failure to reproduce key experiments retracts cancer study

A publication loophole? Authors can make changes editors won’t always see

SEEA few unusual acknowledgements added by authors after finalizing the manuscripts have highlighted a common element in science publishing – right before going to press, authors can make minor changes to manuscripts that editors won’t necessarily review before publication.

We were reminded of this when reading two opinion papers published in August by Science and Engineering Ethics.

For one, “Honor Killing: Where Pride Defeats Reason,” the acknowledgements read: Continue reading A publication loophole? Authors can make changes editors won’t always see

Author appeals retraction for plagiarism in clinical research paper

Journal of Human Reproductive SciencesThe first author of a paper that discussed sample sizes in clinical research is appealing the journal’s decision to retract it for plagiarism, arguing the article is “entirely different.”

The  Journal of Human Reproductive Sciences‘s editor-in-chief told us that they first contacted the author about the allegations more than two years ago, and finally issued the notice in September, saying the paper “directly copied” from another article on randomization. “Thus owing to duplicity of text, the article is being retracted,” according to the notice.

That doesn’t jibe with first author K. P. Suresh, based at the National Institute of Veterinary Epidemiology and Disease Informatics in India. He told us that the “two articles are entirely different concept.” In subsequent emails, he added Continue reading Author appeals retraction for plagiarism in clinical research paper

Journal mistakenly publishes Parkinson’s case report twice

Journal of Movement Disorders

A journal has retracted a duplicate version of a case report about a patient with Parkinson’s disease after mistakenly publishing the paper twice.

The Journal of Movement Disorders initially published the report — which detailed the case of an elderly woman with Parkinson’s disease whose symptoms worsened during drug treatment — in 2010. But it ended up printing it again in 2011 because of “a mistake of the editorial office and the publisher.”

The notice reads:

Continue reading Journal mistakenly publishes Parkinson’s case report twice