Category: australia retractions

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

Why publishers should explain why papers disappear: The complicated Lewandowsky study saga

frontiersLast year, Stephan Lewandowsky and colleagues posted a paper, scheduled for an upcoming issue of Psychological Science, with a, shall we say, provocative title:

NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax

An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

In an interview last year with Lewandowsky, NPR gathered some of the reactions to the paper — which was formally published two days ago — from those it profiled: Continue reading Why publishers should explain why papers disappear: The complicated Lewandowsky study saga

Need more material for your paper under review? Just take it from someone else’s conference presentation

ijmsLet’s say you’re a researcher who’s just gotten reviews back from your latest manuscript, asking for some revisions. Luckily, you find yourself at a conference and spot a presentation that’s related to your work. So you use a bunch of that presentation material in your paper.

Unfortunately for you, the guy who gave that conference presentation sees your paper when it’s published — and he’s justifiably unhappy enough to contact the editors. Continue reading Need more material for your paper under review? Just take it from someone else’s conference presentation

Publisher error leads to retraction, then reinstatement, in agriculture journal

icpcoverHere’s an odd good news/bad news tale from the pages of Industrial Crops and Products. The journal is reinstating a 2011 paper it mistakenly retracted. But, it’s retracting another article from the same author, who tried to grow two peas in the same pod (or something like that).

According to the retraction notice: Continue reading Publisher error leads to retraction, then reinstatement, in agriculture journal

Stem cell retraction leaves grad student in limbo, reveals tangled web of industry-academic ties

stem cells developmentA contested retraction in Stem Cells and Development has left the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) graduate student who fought for it in limbo, uncertain if he will earn his PhD. And many of those who didn’t want the paper retracted have a significant financial interest in a company whose work was promoted by the research — despite any lack of disclosure in the now-retracted paper.

Here’s the notice: Continue reading Stem cell retraction leaves grad student in limbo, reveals tangled web of industry-academic ties

Australian government-funded study of deforestation, climate retracted for intellectual property conflicts

In circumstances we haven’t quite sorted out, an Australian climate researcher has retracted a paper because he didn’t have the right to use data from a now-shuttered government program.

Ravinesh Deo, of the University of Southern Queensland, published “A review and modelling results of the simulated response of deforestation on climate extremes in eastern Australia” in Atmospheric Researchin May of this year.

Last week, this retraction notice appeared: Continue reading Australian government-funded study of deforestation, climate retracted for intellectual property conflicts

PLoS ONE retracts paper on treatment of tissue disease for lack of ethical approval, erroneous data

PLOS ONE has retracted an article it published earlier this year by a group from Australia who failed to receive adequate ethics approval for their study.

The paper, “Late Complications of Clinical Clostridium Histolyticum Collagenase Use in Dupuytren’s Disease,” came from Warren M. Rozen, Yasith Edirisinghe and John Crock (sorry, irony machine not working today). Dupuytren’s causes thickening of the fascia in the hands and often requires surgery.  In 2011 the FDA approved a treatment for the ailment that involves injections of an enzyme — Clostridium Histolyticum Collagenase, or CHC — into the affected area.

The Aussie article looked at the effects of CHC injections in 12 patients over one year, finding that two of the patients suffered Continue reading PLoS ONE retracts paper on treatment of tissue disease for lack of ethical approval, erroneous data

And the winner for longest time on record between publication and retraction is…

Photo by didbygraham via Flickr

We’ve had a few unofficial record-holders here at Retraction Watch. The current leader in the retraction column, for example, is Yoshitaka Fujii, who will likely retract 172 papers. He took that record from Joachim Boldt, with just shy of 90.

Today, we’ll take a stab at another record, longest time between publication and retraction. The apparent record holders, at 25 years, are I.E. Swift and V. E. Milborrow, who were at the University of New South Wales in Australia when they published “Retention of the 4-pro-R hydrogen atom of mevalonate at C-2,2′ of bacterioruberin in Halobacterium halobium” in the Biochemical Journal in 1980. Here’s the retraction notice from 2005 (hat tip Jeffrey Furman and colleagues, who noted the retraction in a paper earlier this year): Continue reading And the winner for longest time on record between publication and retraction is…

Another retraction from chiropractic researchers for lack of ethics approval

Chiropractic & Manual Therapies — formerly known as Chiropractic & Osteopathy — has retracted a 2010 paper by a team of Australian researchers who failed to obtain institutional review board (IRB) approval for their studies.

As the notice for “A descriptive study of a manual therapy intervention within a randomised controlled trial for hamstring and lower limb injury prevention” explains: Continue reading Another retraction from chiropractic researchers for lack of ethics approval

Legal medicine journal pulls paper over image goof

Irony alert: The Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, which really ought to know better, is retracting a 2012 article by an Australian researcher that threatened to run afoul of…privacy law.

The article, “A challenging injury interpretation: Could this be a stab wound?” was written by Les Griffiths, of the Clinical Forensic Medical Unit at University of Queensland in Brisbane. According to the notice: Continue reading Legal medicine journal pulls paper over image goof