Category: france

So-kalled research: French sociology journal retracts hoax article

societeThe world, it seems, cannot get enough of Sokal-type hoaxes.

A French journal, Sociétés, has retracted an article allegedly penned by one Jean-Marc Tremblay but actually written by two sociologists, Manuel Quinon and Arnaud Saint-Martin, who spoofed the work of the journal’s editor, Michel Maffesoli.

As the Crooked Timber blog explains, the article, “Automobilités postmodernes: quand l’Autolib’ fait sensation à Paris,” published in the Continue reading So-kalled research: French sociology journal retracts hoax article

Paper that formed basis of study retracted earlier this year retracted itself, from Science

science dec 2014Back in May, we reported on a retraction from Molecular Cell that referred to a 2012 study the same group had published in Science. (A few weeks later, the lab head told us just how painful the process was.)

Now, the Science paper has been retracted. Here’s the notice: Continue reading Paper that formed basis of study retracted earlier this year retracted itself, from Science

Geneticist retracting four papers for “significant problems”

jbc 620Benjamin Barré, a genetics researcher who recently set up his own group at the University of Angers, is retracting four papers he worked on as a graduate student and postdoc.

Neil Perkins, in whose lab Barré was a postdoc, and Olivier Coqueret, in whose lab he did his PhD, tell Retraction Watch: Continue reading Geneticist retracting four papers for “significant problems”

Some retractions take three years to show up on PubMed: Study

bmcresnotesRetraction Watch readers may have noticed that we often cover retractions long before they appear in PubMed, the gold standard database for the life sciences literature. (In fact, we’ve taken to leaving comments on papers in PubMed Commons about retractions that haven’t been linked to their original abstracts yet.)

This can be an issue, because so many scientists use PubMed to find relevant literature. It may even contribute to the well-documented phenomenon of researchers citing retracted papers as if they hadn’t been retracted.

Until now, no one had quantified the time lag. In a new study, Evelynne Decullier, Laure Huot, and Hervé Maisonneuve — who have published on retractions before — looked at 237 retractions published in 2008. Their findings? Continue reading Some retractions take three years to show up on PubMed: Study

Retracted Seralini GMO-rat study republished

env sci europeA highly controversial — and retracted — 2012 study by Gilles Seralini and colleagues of the effects of genetically modified maize and the Roundup herbicide on rats has been republished.

Retraction Watch readers may recall that the editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology decided to retract the heavily criticized paper because it was “inconclusive.” The editor, A. Wallace Hayes, claimed that this was consistent with Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, although we and many others disagreed.

Here’s the original abstract of the Food and Chemical Toxicology paper, which has been cited 55 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge: Continue reading Retracted Seralini GMO-rat study republished

Update: Lab head shares “painful” process that led to Molecular Cell retraction

molecular cell 14Last month, we published a guest post by Jean Hazel Mendoza about the retraction of a Molecular Cell paper for sampling errors, flawed analysis, and and miscalculation.

Mendoza heard back from Jean-François Allemand, the head of one of the labs involved. Allemand tells Retraction Watch by email that when his group tried to repeat the experiment, they suspected of “missing” or “averaging” of data points in the retracted paper: Continue reading Update: Lab head shares “painful” process that led to Molecular Cell retraction

Sampling error, flawed analysis, and miscalculation trigger Molecular Cell retraction

molecular cell 14Guest post by Jean Hazel Mendoza

A group of researchers from France has retracted a 2013 paper from Molecular Cell after realizing that their analyses of microscopy images were flawed.

Here’s the notice for “RecA-Promoted, RecFOR-Independent Progressive Disassembly of Replisomes Stalled by Helicase Inactivation:” Continue reading Sampling error, flawed analysis, and miscalculation trigger Molecular Cell retraction

Shigeaki Kato up to 25 retractions

Shigeaki Kato
Shigeaki Kato

Shigeaki Kato, who resigned from the University of Tokyo in 2012 after being found to have inappropriately manipulated dozens of images, has two more retractions, both in Molecular Cell.

Here’s the notice for 2002’s “Nuclear Receptor Function Requires a TFTC-Type Histone Acetyl Transferase Complex:” Continue reading Shigeaki Kato up to 25 retractions

Faulty model forces rapid retraction of paper on sea ice and climate change

natgeosciLast month, researchers published a paper whose conclusions suggested that looking at Arctic sea ice in the autumn offers clues to winter temperatures in Europe.

The letter appeared — briefly, as this post will demonstrate — in Nature Geoscience. The letter, titled “High predictability of the winter Euro–Atlantic climate from cryospheric variability,” was written by Javier Garcia-Serrano and Claude Frankignoul, of the Université Pierre et Marie Curie. The journal published the letter on March 23 and retracted it on April 14.

Here’s the abstract, which can still be found online:

Continue reading Faulty model forces rapid retraction of paper on sea ice and climate change

Doing the right thing: Physicists retract paper after becoming aware of “a fundamental error”

prl-bannerThe authors of a paper in Physical Review Letters have retracted it, after another researcher pointed out a mistake.

F. Sattin and D.F. Escande write in the notice for “Alfvénic Propagation: A Key to Nonlocal Effects in Magnetized Plasmas” (which is behind a paywall) that after the paper was published, they “we became aware of a fundamental error in the normalization of our equations.” Excerpt: Continue reading Doing the right thing: Physicists retract paper after becoming aware of “a fundamental error”