Category: australia retractions

Journal and authors apologize “unreservedly” for distress caused to deceased child’s family by case report

aaicNeuroskeptic featured an interesting situation over the weekend, involving a case report published in an anesthesiology journal.

The case report in Anaesthesia and Intensive Care — about a six-year-old boy with a rare neurological condition who died following administration of anesthesia — caused the boy’s parents great distress when it appeared in November.

Surgery journal adds detail to retraction notice following Retraction Watch coverage

j surg oncLast month, we wrote about the retraction of a study in the Journal of Surgical Oncology (JSO) for duplication. But we were a bit frustrated by the lack of information in the notice. As we wrote at the time:

It would be nice to know a couple of things here. For example, when and where was the duplicated paper published? And who were the authors?

Well, we’ve heard from the journal, and have some updates. Brittany White, managing editor of the JSO, tells us, on behalf of editor-in-chief Stephen F. Sener, that: Continue reading Surgery journal adds detail to retraction notice following Retraction Watch coverage

“This unfortunate incident”: Resubmission leads to retraction of readmission paper

j surg oncThe Journal of Surgical Oncology has retracted a 2007 paper on hospitalizations of breast cancer patients for being a duplicate of another, presumably earlier, article. Although the usable information in the retraction notice ends just about there.

The article, “Factors Affecting Hospital Readmission Rates for Breast Cancer Patients in Western Australia,” appeared online in January 2007 in the journal and came from a group at the School of Finance and Applied Statistics at Australian National University in Canberra.

According to the notice: Continue reading “This unfortunate incident”: Resubmission leads to retraction of readmission paper

JBC issues correction for paper by Khachigian, who has had four others retracted

jbc1113The Journal of Biological Chemistry has a fairly gory correction — we’d call it a mega-correction — for a 2010 paper by Levon Khachigian, an Australian researcher whose studies of a new drug for skin cancer recently were halted over concerns about possible misconduct, including image manipulation. As we reported earlier this year, Khachigian has already lost four papers, including one in the JBC — which the journal simply noted had “been withdrawn by the authors.”

The new correction involves the article “c-Jun regulates shear- and injury-inducible Egr-1 expression, vein graft stenosis after autologous end-to-side transplantation in rabbits, and intimal hyperplasia in human saphenous veins,” which Khachigian wrote with Jun Ni and Alla Waldman. The paper has been cited nine times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge. Here’s the notice: Continue reading JBC issues correction for paper by Khachigian, who has had four others retracted

Aussie university asks for retraction, investigates former neurology researcher for fraud

uqThe University of Queensland has decided to get out in front of a serious research misconduct scandal by issuing a press release about the item even before, well, we could get a hold of the story.

The affair involves Bruce Murdoch (all of his links at UQ are defunct), an expert in movement disorders such as Parkinson’s disease. Murdoch isn’t named in the release, but he is the corresponding author of the retracted paper, which is called out in the statement.

According to UQ, Murdoch seems to have published a paper in the European Journal of Neurology on research he never conducted — and on the basis of which he received a $20,000 grant. The paper has been cited six times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

UQ has called for a retraction of the paper, although that does not appear to have happened yet.

Here’s the release, from Peter Høj, president and vice chancellor of the institution, in its entirety: Continue reading Aussie university asks for retraction, investigates former neurology researcher for fraud

Pesticide paper retracted for “major errors”

foods-logoThe authors of a 2013 paper in the journal Foods which sounded alarms about the concentrations of pesticides in vegetables and other commercial crops have pulled the article, citing an insurmountable mistake.  To wit: the levels of pesticides they reported were, in fact, not what the data really showed.

The article, titled “Health risk assessment of pesticide residues via dietary intake of market vegetables from Dhaka, Bangladesh,” came from a group from that country and Australia.  Continue reading Pesticide paper retracted for “major errors”

Aussie university halts trials of skin cancer drug whose developer has four retractions

khachigian
Khachigian

An Australian university has put a hold on trials of an experimental drug for skin cancer whose main developer has been dogged by charges of research misconduct for several years.

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation is reporting that the University of New South Wales has suspended trials of the drug, DZ13, while it investigates the work of Levon Khachigian, who is leading the studies.

According to the news organization, Khachigian and his group were cleared by the school in two prior inquiries. However, additional accusations of misconduct — specifically involving image manipulation and misuse — prompted a third investigation.

We’ve found four retractions of Khachigian’s studies, from the Journal of Biological Chemistry and Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, between 2009 and 2010 (before the launch of Retraction Watch).

They are: Continue reading Aussie university halts trials of skin cancer drug whose developer has four retractions

Why I retracted my Nature paper: A guest post from David Vaux about correcting the scientific record

Last month, Ivan met David Vaux at the 3rd World Conference on Research Integrity in Montreal. David mentioned a retraction he published in Nature, and we thought it would be a great guest post on what it’s like to retract one of your own papers in an attempt to clean up the literature.

vaux
David Vaux

In September 1995 Nature asked me to review a manuscript by Bellgrau and co-workers, which subsequently appeared. I was very excited by this paper, as it showed that expression of CD95L on Sertoli cells in allogeneic mismatched testes tissue transplanted under the kidney capsule was able to induce apoptosis of invading cytotoxic T cells, thereby preventing rejection. As I wrote in a News and Views piece, the implications of these findings were enormous – grafts engineered to express CD95L would be able to prevent rejection without generalized immunosuppression.

In fact, I was so taken by these findings that we started generation of transgenic mice that expressed CD95L on their islet beta cells to see if it would allow islet cell grafts to avoid rejection and provide a cure for diabetes in mismatched recipients.

Little did we know that instead of providing an answer to transplant rejection, these experiments would teach us a great deal about editorial practices and the difficulty of correcting errors once they appear in the literature. Continue reading Why I retracted my Nature paper: A guest post from David Vaux about correcting the scientific record

Pfizer database errors cause two voluminous retractions for JACC statin-biomarker papers

Jacc1212coverCoding errors in a database maintained by Pfizer have led authors to retract two heart biomarker papers in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The two notices, for “Prediction of cardiovascular events in statin-treated patients by lipid and non-lipid biomarkers” and “Plasma PCSK9 levels and clinical outcomes in the TNT (Treating to New Targets) Trial,” are highly detailed and say the same thing: Continue reading Pfizer database errors cause two voluminous retractions for JACC statin-biomarker papers

Update: Lewandowsky et al paper on conspiracist ideation “provisionally removed” due to complaints

frontiersLast week, we covered the complicated story of a paper by Stephan Lewandowsky and colleagues that had been removed — or at least all but the abstract — from its publisher’s site. Our angle on the story was how Frontiers, which publishes Frontiers in Personality Science and Individual Differences, where the study appeared, had handled the withdrawal. It happened without any notice, and no text appeared to let the reader know why the paper had vanished.

Today, Frontiers posted a note to readers on top of the paper’s abstract: Continue reading Update: Lewandowsky et al paper on conspiracist ideation “provisionally removed” due to complaints