Another busy week at Retraction Watch, with Ivan in Seoul speaking on research integrity at the Korean Medical Association conference. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Academics go to court, hijacked journals
Category: by author
Chemistry paper in Science earns expression of concern for unreliable data
A 2011 paper in Science has been subjected to an expression of concern and has led to an investigation by the Texas university where the work was done.
Here’s the expression of concern, signed by Science editor in chief Marcia McNutt (and paywalled): Continue reading Chemistry paper in Science earns expression of concern for unreliable data
Republished Seralini GMO-rat study was not peer-reviewed, says editor
In our coverage Tuesday of the republication of the controversial retracted study of GMOs and rats by Gilles Seralini and colleagues, we wrote this about a strange passage in an editor’s note on the paper:
The republished study was peer-reviewed, according to the press materials, and Seralini confirmed that it was in an email to Retraction Watch. But we were curious what “any kind of appraisal of the paper’s content should not be connoted” meant. We asked Seralini and the editor of Environmental Sciences Europe, Henner Hollert, but neither responded.
Hollert has responded to the same question from Nature, which reports: Continue reading Republished Seralini GMO-rat study was not peer-reviewed, says editor
Cancer researcher facing criminal inquiry up to six retractions
Alfredo Fusco, who is under criminal investigation in Italy for scientific fraud, has had two more papers retracted.
Both are in the Journal of Biological Chemistry (JBC). Here are the two studies: Continue reading Cancer researcher facing criminal inquiry up to six retractions
Physicists with retraction for a “pattern that was unphysical” lose another for manipulation
In September, we wrote about the retraction of a physics paper for “a pattern that was unphysical.”
The team, whose first author, R.K. Singhal refused to sign the notice, has had another paper retracted, this one in the Journal of Applied Physics. Here’s the notice for “Study of electronic structure and magnetization correlations in hydrogenated and vacuum annealed Ni doped ZnO:” Continue reading Physicists with retraction for a “pattern that was unphysical” lose another for manipulation
Retracted Seralini GMO-rat study republished
A highly controversial — and retracted — 2012 study by Gilles Seralini and colleagues of the effects of genetically modified maize and the Roundup herbicide on rats has been republished.
Retraction Watch readers may recall that the editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology decided to retract the heavily criticized paper because it was “inconclusive.” The editor, A. Wallace Hayes, claimed that this was consistent with Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, although we and many others disagreed.
Here’s the original abstract of the Food and Chemical Toxicology paper, which has been cited 55 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge: Continue reading Retracted Seralini GMO-rat study republished
Researcher who tampered with investigation up to 8 retractions
Karel Bezouška, the scientist who tried to derail an investigation into his work by breaking into a lab refrigerator has had an eighth paper retracted.
Here’s the notice for “Synthetic N-Acetyl-d-glucosamine Based Fully Branched Tetrasaccharide, a Mimetic of the Endogenous Ligand for CD69, Activates CD69+ Killer Lymphocytes upon Dimerization via a Hydrophilic Flexible Linker:” Continue reading Researcher who tampered with investigation up to 8 retractions
“Barriers to retraction may impede correction of the literature:” New study
One of the complaints we often hear about the self-correcting nature of science is that authors and editors seem very reluctant to retract papers with obvious fatal flaws. Indeed, it seems fairly clear that the number of papers retracted is smaller than the number of those that should be.
To try to get a sense of how errors are corrected in the literature, Arturo Casadevall, Grant Steen, and Ferric Fang, whose work on retractions will be familiar to our readers, in a new paper in the FASEB Journal, look at the sources of error in papers retracted for reasons other than misconduct.
Here’s the abstract (emphasis ours): Continue reading “Barriers to retraction may impede correction of the literature:” New study
Ulrich Lichtenthaler retraction count rises to 16
The pixels were barely dry on our post reporting the 14th and 15th retractions for management professor Ulrich Lichtenthaler Friday by the time his 16th retraction appeared.
Here’s the notice for “The role of deliberate and experiential learning in developing capabilities: Insights from technology licensing,” a paper originally published in 2012 in the Journal of Engineering and Technology Management: Continue reading Ulrich Lichtenthaler retraction count rises to 16
Management prof Lichtenthaler up to 15 retractions
Ulrich Lichtenthaler, of the University of Mannheim, has notched retractions 14 and 15, both in Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice.
Here’s the notice for “Technological Turbulence and the Impact of Exploration and Exploitation Within and Across Organizations on Product Development Performance:” Continue reading Management prof Lichtenthaler up to 15 retractions