We’ve seen a lot of retraction notices for work by Anil Potti — 10, to be precise, along with 7 corrections and one partial retraction notice. As notices go, they tend to be pretty complete. So when we saw one in CHEST for this 2008 abstract, we were expecting something similar.
Instead, we were confused.
Here’s the notice: Continue reading Another retraction for Anil Potti, with an inscrutable notice
A group of researchers in China have retracted a 2011 article in Acta Pharmacologica Sinica, the official journal of the Chinese Pharmacological Society, acknowledging that they lifted text and results from a previously published paper from other researchers.
The paper was titled “Lipid metabolism disturbances and AMPK activation in prolonged propofol-sedated rabbits under mechanical ventilation.”
According to the notice: Continue reading Expressions of regret: group retracts sedation paper for stolen words, data
A gynecologic cancer researcher at Oita University in Japan has retracted three papers by his group after the discovery of duplicated figures and manipulated images.
The three papers by Noriyuki Takai and colleagues all appeared in Gynecologic Oncology: Continue reading Three gynecologic cancer studies retracted for figure duplication, image manipulation
Earlier today, we reported on what we thought was the first retraction to appear for Dirk Smeesters, who we noted was “the former Erasmus University social psychology professor investigated for serious irregularities in his work.” It turns out, however, as a Retraction Watch tipster told us, that another retraction had already been published.
The notice appeared in the August 2012 issue of the Journal of Consumer Research: Continue reading We missed one: Make that two retractions for Dirk Smeesters
A paper by Dirk Smeesters — the former Erasmus University social psychology professor investigated for serious irregularities in his work — has been retracted.
The study, “Visual perspective influences the use of metacognitive information in temporal comparisons,” appeared in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology earlier this year. Here’s the notice, which doesn’t quite say “fraud”: Continue reading Retraction appears for paper by social psychologist Dirk Smeesters
The Dutch media are reporting that Diederik Stapel, the Tilburg University social psychologist who fabricated data in dozens of studies, is facing a criminal probe for his misuse of some 2.2 million euros (roughly $2.8 million U.S.) in government grant funding.
A Retraction Watch commenter tipped us off this morning that the newspaper NRC Handelsblad reports (thanks to Google Translate): Continue reading Diederik Stapel faces criminal inquiry for misuse of funds
A new study out in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) today finds that two-thirds of retractions are because of some form of misconduct — a figure that’s higher than previously thought, thanks to unhelpful retraction notices that cause us to beat our heads against the wall here at Retraction Watch.
The study of 2,047 retractions in biomedical and life-science research articles in PubMed from 1973 until May 3, 2012 brings together three retraction researchers whose names may be familiar to Retraction Watch readers: Ferric Fang, Grant Steen, and Arturo Casadevall. Fang and Casadevall have published together, including on their Retraction Index, but this is the first paper by the trio.
Michael Hertl, a leading dermatology researcher at Philipps-University Marburg, has been cleared of any wrongdoing in a case that spawned a retraction last year and two just-published retractions.
Felicitas Riedel, a legal officer for the university, tells Retraction Watch that the
…Committee for Scientific Misconduct of the Philipps-University Marburg closed the matter and submitted its results to the President of the University who in the meantime after examination consented with it.
The findings? Continue reading University clears leading dermatology lab head of misconduct as authors issue two corrections
The journal Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice is retracting a 2003 paper by psychologist Lawrence Sanna, who appears to have been fabricating his data. Sanna’s work, Retraction Watch readers may recall, came under the scrutiny of Uri Simonsohn, who also investigated Dirk Smeesters’ research.
Here’s the notice, which offers an impressive amount of back story as these things go: Continue reading “Invalid data” prompt retraction of another paper from psychologist Sanna
Diederik Stapel’s CV continues to crumble, with five more retractions for the disgraced Dutch social scientist who admitted to fabricating data in his studies.
The latest articles to fall appeared in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, a Sage title, bringing Stapel’s total to 25 that we’re aware of so far: Continue reading A fistful of Stapels: Psych journal retracts five more from Dutch researcher, upping total to 25