We’ve been alerted to two more retractions of articles by University of Calgary researcher Cory Toth, both in the journal Diabetes, for image doctoring.
One paper, from 2008, was titled “Receptor for Advanced Glycation End Products (RAGEs) and Experimental Diabetic Neuropathy.” It has been cited 93 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge. The notice states: Continue reading More retractions for researcher who says he will no longer publish
A new paper in Intelligence is offering some, well, intel into the peer review process at one prestigious neuroscience journal.
The new paper is about another paper, a December 2012 study, “Fractionating Human Intelligence,” published in Neuron by Adam Hampshire and colleagues in December 2012. The Neuron study has been cited 16 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.
Richard Haier and colleagues write in Intelligence that Continue reading Anonymous blog comment suggests lack of confidentiality in peer review — and plays role in a new paper
Last year, we reported on a Nature correction of a paper for what a McGill University committee had earlier called “intentionally contrived and falsified” figures. It turns out that the correction — like the original paper — left some Nature readers puzzled, so the journal has run a correction of the correction: Continue reading Nature corrects a correction
Back in January 2013, we wrote about the retraction of a paper in Diabetes that the authors had “submitted without knowledge of inherent errors or abnormalities that they recognized in retrospect after submission.”
Now, Molecular Pain has retracted a paper by the same authors, this time for data manipulation. The article, “Comparison of central versus peripheral delivery of pregabalin in neuropathic pain states,” was written by Cory Toth, a clinical neuroscientist at the University of Calgary, in Canada, and colleagues. It has been cited eight times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.
Toth said of the Diabetes article at the time:
Continue reading Pain study retracted for bogus data is second withdrawal for University of Calgary group
We’ve learned more about the circumstances behind a Cell retraction that we covered last week.
First, one of the two corresponding authors left the institution where he most recently worked. Belgium’s VIB Ghent told us that Pankaj Dhonukshe was no longer employed there and said: Continue reading Cell update: Co-corresponding author let go from Belgian university; retraction notice language changed
The authors of a 2012 paper in Cell have retracted it after discovering “serious issues with several figures.”
Here’s the notice for “A PLETHORA-Auxin Transcription Module Controls Cell Division Plane Rotation through MAP65 and CLASP:” Continue reading Authors retract Cell paper amid ongoing investigation
The Office of Research Integrity has concluded that Hao Wang, a Canadian pathologist, falsified data in a 2011 poster presentation supported by money from the National Institutes of Health.
For his part Wang, a former faculty member at Western University in Ontario (his website is still active but his email bounces back), has said there were undisclosed “extenuating circumstances” in the matter but that he could not afford to fight the case. Wang also seems to be making the “no harm, no foul” defense, as you’ll see from the notice: Continue reading ORI sanctions pathologist in Canada for bogus monkey data
PNAS has a curious correction in a recent issue. A group from Toronto and Mount Sinai in New York, it seems, had been rather too liberal in their use of text from a previously published paper by another researcher — what we might call plagiarism, in a less charitable mood.
To paraphrase Beyoncé: If you like it, better put some quotation marks around it. But we’re pretty sure she meant before, not after, the fact.
The article, “Structural basis for substrate specificity and catalysis of human histone acetyltransferase 1,” had appeared in May 2012, in other words, some 17 months ago. It has been cited twice, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.
As the notice states: Continue reading Correction by punctuation? PNAS fixes paper by putting quotes around plagiarized passages
The Journal of Neuroscience‘s retraction notices often give us plenty to chew on, and a new Expression of Concern does the same.
In the notice — for a 16-year-old paper — the journal notes three cases of what certainly sounds like image manipulation, but carefully avoids calling it that: Continue reading He said, she said: Journal of Neuroscience expresses concern, but doesn’t pursue investigation
Irony alert: If you’re going to publish a paper on the importance of hearing from many voice in a debate, better make sure every voice is heard.
Here’s a case where some got muted.
Third World Quarterly, a Taylor & Francis title, has retracted a paper it published recently because only one of the authors — a co-editor of the special issue in which the paper appeared — was listed on the final article. Here’s the retraction notice, which explains the publisher’s mishap: Continue reading E pluribus unum (oops!) forces retraction of social justice article