The Journal of Computational Chemistry is retracting a 2011 paper by a group of Chinese researchers for duplication.
The article was titled “Predicting Protein Folding Rates Using the Concept of Chou’s Pseudo Amino Acid Composition.” According to the notice: Continue reading Pseudo amino acid paper pseudo new — and now retracted
The editors of the World Journal of Emergency Surgery have published an Expression of Concern about a paper after they couldn’t verify one of the three case reports in it.
Here’s the notice for “Necrotizing fasciitis: literature review of contemporary strategies for diagnosing and management with three case reports: torso, abdominal wall, upper and lower limbs,” by surgeons from Split and Zagreb, Croatia: Continue reading Surgery journal issues Expression of Concern when institution can’t confirm case study details “for legal reasons”
The journal Gerodontology has retracted a paper for overbite, er overlap.
The article, “Translation and validation of the Hindi version of the Geriatric Oral Health Assessment Index,” was first published in January of this year by Saee P. Deshmukh and Usha M. Radke, of the department of prosthodontics at VSPM’s Dental College and Hospital, in Nagpur, India.
According to the retraction notice: Continue reading Tomato, tomahto—let’s call the oral health thing off
The editors of Acta Radiologica have retracted a study of patients with lung cancer, with a notice that tells the whole story:
The manuscript “Measurement of tumor volume by PET to evaluate prognosis in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated by non-surgical therapy” was submitted to Acta Radiologica on November 3, 2010 and, after a review, accepted for publication on February 26, 2011 (1). The article was published in Acta Radiol 2011;52:646–50. Authors were: Honjiang Yan, Renben Wang (corresponding author), Fen Zhao, Kubli Zhu, Shumei Jiang, Wei Zhao, and Rui Feng, from the Department of Radiation Oncology and Department of Nuclear Medicine, Shandong Tumor Hospital, Jinan, China. Continue reading In detailed notice, radiology journal retracts lung cancer paper for likely plagiarism
The authors of a study estimating how much radioactive material from two sunken Russian submarines is taken up by fish in the Barents Sea have retracted it, citing the need for “significant and extensive” corrections.
Here’s the notice, from Environmental Pollution: Continue reading Radioactive fish study retracted for “significant and extensive” corrections
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies — formerly known as Chiropractic & Osteopathy — has retracted a 2010 paper by a team of Australian researchers who failed to obtain institutional review board (IRB) approval for their studies.
As the notice for “A descriptive study of a manual therapy intervention within a randomised controlled trial for hamstring and lower limb injury prevention” explains: Continue reading Another retraction from chiropractic researchers for lack of ethics approval
Authors of two separate studies in RSC Advances — RSC is the Royal Society of Chemistry — have retracted their papers.
Here’s one notice, for “Laser-induced gold/chitosan nanocomposites with tailored wettability applied to multi-irradiated microfluidic channels:” Continue reading Two Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) Advances retractions, for unreliable results, surprised author
Jesús A. Lemus, the Spanish veterinary researcher whose work has been the subject of a misconduct inquiry, has another retraction for his CV. It’s his third, according to our count.
The newest retraction is from PLoS ONE:
Continue reading Feeling sheepish: Another retraction for Lemus, of study of whether livestock can spread chlamydia to birds
The authors of a chemistry paper are retracting it after a Columbia University chemistry researcher pointed out a fatal misinterpretation of his own work in it.
Here’s the notice in Chemistry — A European Journal: Continue reading Did a McLuhan moment lead to retraction in Chemistry — A European Journal?
We’ve written about mega-corrections that allow scientists to retrace virtually all of their steps yet preserve their publications as supposedly legitimate. And we’ve seen plenty of corrections that allow authors to assert that their conclusions are correct when evidently important pieces of data are themselves unreliable.
Now comes a correction that seems to us to strike the right chords, given the fact that editors are to a large extent at the mercy of authors in these situations. Continue reading Correction for MD Anderson’s Bharat Aggarwal arches eyebrows for the right reasons