Karel Bezouška, who tried tampering with an investigation into his work by breaking into a lab refrigerator, has had a seventh paper retracted.
Here’s the notice for “Carboxylated calixarenes bind strongly to CD69 and protect CD69+ killer cells from suicidal cell death induced by tumor cell surface ligands,” which was first published in Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry in 2010: Continue reading Seventh retraction appears for author who tampered with investigation
It’s not unusual for us to hear allegations that journals have caved to corporate demands that they retract papers. And companies have certainly objected to the publication of results that painted their products in an unflattering light.
Continue reading Stunner: Researchers retract paper because company complains it’s hurting profits
A group of bird researchers in China has lost their article in Wetlands Ecology and Management on the migratory habits of shorebirds after the editors of the journal learned that they’d cobbled the paper together from their own previously published work.
The article by Song et. al., “Ecological stability of the shorebird stopover site in the Yalu River Estuary Wetlands, China,” had appeared online in February.
Here’s the abstract: Continue reading Birds of a feather: Duplication grounds migration paper
Last month, we wrote about the launch of a new site, Stand Up 2 Science Bullies, whose co-founders said that they had been
covertly and cyber bullied by one scientist for nine years.
One of the questions we often get — but are careful to answer with some version of “we don’t know because we don’t have a denominator” — is how retraction rates vary by scientific field and country. We’ve noticed that the reasons for retraction seem to vary among countries, but didn’t really have the data. A new paper in the Journal of the Medical Library Association by Kathleen Amos takes a good step toward figuring the country part out.
Amos looked at PubMed-indexed retractions from 2008 to 2012. Here’s what she found: Continue reading Which countries have the most retractions, for which reasons?
A recent paper proposing a way to “print any drug instantly” has been withdrawn by the author, following bewildered reactions from the blogosphere.
The paper made the rounds at various chemistry-focused blogs last month. Derek Lowe of In The Pipeline picked up on it too, calling the article
one of the oddest papers to appear in Drug Discovery Today, which is saying something.
Apparently, the author — or someone claiming to be the author, using the initials YC — wasn’t crazy about the criticism. He left this comment on In The Pipeline and elsewhere: Continue reading Paper claiming a way to “print any drug instantly” gets unprinted
Last October, the BMJ published a paper by a group of researchers from the United States and Canada questioning the use of statins in patients considered at low risk of cardiovascular disease.
The article has been cited eight times since then, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge. It mentioned data from another study that reported a high rate of side effects in patients who used the drugs, between 18% and 20% — suggesting that those who received little or no benefit from the therapy could be more more likely to suffer harm than good.
But that citation turns out to have been flawed — prompting the journal to take the unusual step of removing those “statements” from the article and another it published about the issue that has been cited six times. And in an editorial, BMJ editor Fiona Godlee said she has asked a panel of experts to review the original paper to determine if it ought to be retracted completely: Continue reading BMJ authors take back inaccurate statin safety statements
Former U.S. vice presidential candidate and Alaska governor Sarah Palin is no stranger to retractions, or perhaps “walk backs,” as politicians usually call them. There was her apology for comments about Pope Francis, a clarification about comments thought to be directed at Rush Limbaugh, and a walk back on her behalf from her running mate, Sen. John McCain.
Now, a paper in the academic literature that refers to her has been retracted. Here’s the notice from Political Research Quarterly: Continue reading A retraction involving Sarah Palin
A group of researchers in Singapore has lost two 2013 articles in BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care for problems with their data.
One of the articles was titled “Patients with Dysphagia: Encounters in Taking Medication;” the other, “Issues Associated with Delirium Severity Among Older Patients.” In both cases, the first and second authors were Rajaram S and Chua HC, of Khoo Teck Puat Hospital.
According to the retraction notices:
Continue reading Data “irregularities” prompt retraction of palliative care papers
What a difference a new editor can make.
Consider the case of a paper in Scientometrics that came to the attention earlier this year of Jeffrey Beall.
Beall, a research librarian and scourge of the predatory publishing world, had previously posted on his blog about his frustrations with the journal’s seeming indifference to the word theft. (He also helped bring about another plagiarism retraction we covered earlier this year.)
The article was titled “Educational reforms and internationalization of universities: evidence from major regions of the world,” and was written by a group from China and Pakistan.It has been cited just once, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge, by another paper in Scientometrics.