Woo-Suk Hwang is having quite a comeback.
The cloning researcher’s fall from grace in 2005 and 2006 was covered worldwide, featuring two high-profile retractions from Science and convictions (now under appeal) on charges he embezzled government funds and broke South Korea’s bioethics law. But as Nature reported last month in a profile focusing on Hwang’s Biotech Research Foundation: Continue reading Fraud, retractions no barrier to US cloning patent for Woo-Suk Hwang
Another busy week at Retraction Watch, featuring lots of snow at HQ and a trip to take part in a conference in Davis, California. Here’s what was happening elsewhere on the web: Continue reading Weekend reads: MIT professor accused of fraud, biologist who retracted paper suspended, and more
Cancer Science, the journal of the Japanese Cancer Association, has retracted a 2012 article by a group of researchers because, well, it wasn’t clear who made up the group in the first place.
The article, “Antitumor activity of human γδ T cells transducted with CD8 and with T-cell receptors of tumor-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes,” appeared online in July 2012 and was written, ostensibly, by Takeshi Hanagiri, Yoshiki Shigematsu, Koji Kuroda, Tetsuro Baba, Hironobu Shiota, Yoshinobu Ichiki, Yoshika Nagata, Manabu Yasuda, Tomoko So, Mitsuhiro Takenoyama and Fumihiro Tanaka from the Second Department of Surgery at the University of Occupational and Environmental Health, in Kitakyushu.
The abstract states: Continue reading Dispute with “unlisted author whose claim to authorship could not be solved” topples cancer paper
The journal Bioinformation has retracted a 2009 article by a group of researchers from India.
The paper was titled “Targeting pseudoknots in H5N1 hemagglutinin using designed aptamers,” and was written by Priyanka Dhar, Sayak Ganguli and Abhijit Datta, of the Defence Institute of High Altitude Research and the Bioinformatics Centre at Presidency College in Kolkata.
Under a heading, “Reader Feedback”, the retraction notice states: Continue reading ‘Pseudoknots’ a pseudopaper, retracted for plagiarism
Some Retraction Watch readers may recall this episode, recounted in a recent op-ed by Lew Powell:
During the 1980s and early ’90s a wave of nonexistent “satanic ritual abuse” claims shut down scores of day cares such as Little Rascals, McMartin in California and Fells Acres in Massachusetts. In virtually every instance the charges lacked any basis in fact. Today no reputable psychologist or other social scientist will argue otherwise. The defendants were innocent victims of a “moral panic” that bore striking similarities to the Salem witch hunts 300 years earlier.
Psychologist Richard Noll found the charges troubling too, so he wrote a piece last year for Psychiatric Times because: Continue reading Psychiatric Times retracts essay on “satanic ritual abuse”
Dental Materials Journal has retracted three papers by different groups of authors for “violation of our publishing policies and procedures” — which turns out to be a polite way of saying “they wouldn’t pay our fees.”
The articles are: Continue reading A first? Dental journal retracts three papers because authors didn’t pay publication charges
The Journal of Asian Earth Sciences has retracted a 2004 article by a scholar in India who resused text from a previous work on which he was a co-author.
The article, “Finite strain and deformation from a refolded region of the Dudatoli-Almora Crystalline, Kumaun Lesser Himalaya,” was written by Hari B. Srivastava, of Banaras Hindu University in Varanasi. Here’s what it had to say: Continue reading Paper on refolded mountain range a reproduction, now retracted
If you know Prairie Home Companion, you that that in fictional Lake Wobegon, “all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average.”
That’s a bit like what Harvard’s Nir Eyal found when he was asked to review a paper for Dove Medical Press. Here’s what he saw when he looked at Dove’s peer reviewer form:
Continue reading No more scientific Lake Wobegon: After criticism, publisher adds a “reject” option for peer reviewers
About three years ago, we brought Retraction Watch readers news of our new favorite journal, the Journal of Universal Rejection. In a post titled “No retractions necessary” that featured an interview with the editor, Caleb Emmons, we quoted the journal:
The founding principle of the Journal of Universal Rejection (JofUR) is rejection. Universal rejection. That is to say, all submissions, regardless of quality, will be rejected.
So we’re thrilled to learn that the JofUR has now moved into the lucrative conference market, with their Conference of Universal Rejection scheduled for August of this year: Continue reading Coming soon to a city nowhere near you: The Conference of Universal Rejection
Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa — known for his tough questions for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) — wants to know why a former researcher at Iowa State University wasn’t prosecuted more vigorously after he was found to have deliberately spiked rabbit blood samples in a federally-funded HIV vaccine study.
As Tony Leys of the Des Moines Register reports: Continue reading Should scientific fraud be treated as a crime?