Category: india retractions

When two words colloid: “copied and manipulated” figures prompt retraction of nanoparticle paper

colloids and surfaces bThe journal Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces has retracted a 2011 paper by a group of researchers in India who misappropriated — and then manhandled — a pair of images from a previously published article by other scientists.

The paper, “Synthesis and characterization of chitosan and grape polyphenols stabilized palladium nanoparticles and their antibacterial activity,” was written by authors from various institutions in Tamil Nadu, and appeared online in December 2011 and in print the following April. It has been cited three times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

Here’s the abstract: Continue reading When two words colloid: “copied and manipulated” figures prompt retraction of nanoparticle paper

Figure error forces retraction of transgenic chickpea paper

pcrcoverThe humble chickpea has become one of the world’s most promising cash crops, so it’s no surprise that efforts are underway to make it even more humble, er, profitable, through genetic manipulation.

But one group of scientists made hummus out of their approach when they botched what evidently was a key element of a figure in their 2011 paper in Plant Cell Reports (PCR).

The article, “High-efficiency Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and regeneration of insect-resistant transgenic plants,” came from researchers at the National Botanical Research Institute in Lucknow, India. Cited three times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge, it purported to find that: Continue reading Figure error forces retraction of transgenic chickpea paper

A new plagiarism euphemism: “language from already published sources without using proper citation methods”

crestA recent issue of Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology (CREST) adds a new euphemism for plagiarism to our rapidly growing list.

There are two retractions in the issue of the Taylor & Francis journal. One is for “Remediation of Heavy Metal Contaminated Soils: An Overview of Site Remediation Techniques,” by a group from Portugal: Continue reading A new plagiarism euphemism: “language from already published sources without using proper citation methods”

Retraction notice for cancer paper gives wide berth to the “p” word

jneuroncolThe Journal of Neuro-Oncology has retracted a 2009 article on brain tumors for what’s clearly plagiarism — but which is called everything but.

The article was titled “Glioma grading: sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of diffusion and perfusion imaging,” and it came from a group at the Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, in Trivandrum, India.

Here’s the — rather laughable — retraction notice, which dances around the matter about as deftly as a freshman with the prom queen:

Continue reading Retraction notice for cancer paper gives wide berth to the “p” word

“Administrative error on the part of the author” that led to duplicated text prompts retraction

techforcchangeWhen you think of an administrative error, what comes to mind? Failure to tell an employee that the reason he didn’t receive a paycheck in July was because he was fired in June? Putting the wrong address on your business cards?

You’d probably have to go pretty far down the list before you reached something like this: “I used text from one of my previously published articles in a second paper.” And yet … Continue reading “Administrative error on the part of the author” that led to duplicated text prompts retraction

“Clear case of plagiarism” forces retraction of chemistry paper

jrnlchemscieThe Journal of Chemical Sciences,  the journal of the Indian Academy of Sciences, has retracted a 2012 paper by a group of researchers in India and South Korea who stole material (and a lot of it) from a 2009 article for their reactant.

The retraction notice (it’s a pdf) speaks quite well for itself:

Continue reading “Clear case of plagiarism” forces retraction of chemistry paper

“Soft biometrics” for human ID paper guilty of identity theft, retracted

ausjrforensciThe Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences has retracted a paper it published earlier this year on the use of facial biometrics to identify humans.

The reason: Evidently, those biometrics had already largely been described by another group.

Here’s the notice: Continue reading “Soft biometrics” for human ID paper guilty of identity theft, retracted

Come again? “Penile Strangulation by Metallic Rings” retracted for duplication

indjrnsurgThe Indian Journal of Surgery, a Springer-Verlag title, has retracted a 2011 paper with a title only the Marquis de Sade would love: “Penile Strangulation by Metallic Rings.”

We know what you’re saying: Who knew penises could be strangulated? Well, it’s true.

Continue reading Come again? “Penile Strangulation by Metallic Rings” retracted for duplication

A masterbatch: More polymer retractions, gerontology journal lifts paywall, Microbiology notices appear

masterbatch
Germans and Italians are big masterbatchers. Click to enlarge. via http://bit.ly/100YBKB

Our mothers told us that if we used the masterbatch process, we’d go blind. And what better way to gather some updates to recent posts than to include one that involves said masterbatch process?

First, a retraction John Spevacek noticed when he tried clicking on the link in a Journal of Applied Polymer Science retraction we’d covered: Continue reading A masterbatch: More polymer retractions, gerontology journal lifts paywall, Microbiology notices appear

Forbidden fruit: apple pomace paper retracted for plagiarism

foodbioprodprocThe journal Food and Bioproducts Processing has retracted a 2012 article on apple pomace — the remnants of a pressed fruit — by a group from India.

The reason? Turns out the paper “Utility of apple pomace as a substrate for various products: A review,” fell a little to close to the tree.

Here’s the retraction notice: Continue reading Forbidden fruit: apple pomace paper retracted for plagiarism