Category: australia retractions

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

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