The science world has been abuzz with news that a 2010 Science paper on an arsenic-based strain of bacteria had been refuted by two new studies published Sunday night. Yesterday on Retraction Watch, David Sanders argued the paper should still be retracted. So we were curious whether the editors of the journal had ever asked Felisa Wolfe-Simon and her colleagues to retract the paper. Science tells Retraction Watch: Continue reading Science has “not asked for a correction or retraction” of arsenic life paper, and why situation is unlike XMRV-CFS
Category: by country
Despite refutation, Science arsenic life paper deserves retraction, scientist argues
Yesterday, Science published two papers which undercut an earlier paper in the journal claiming to show evidence for an arsenic-based strain of bacteria. Guest poster David Sanders, a structural biologist at Purdue University who was involved in a Retraction Watch story in May, argues that the journal could have avoided publishing the rebuttals—a swift retraction of the original was (and still is) the better move.
Allow me to apologize from the start. This narrative is not a typical Retraction Watch post, because it contains a number of personal elements. However, it would be hard to separate my perspective from my experience.
I will begin by asserting that, despite Rosie Redfield’s many valuable contributions to refuting the Wolfe-Simon paper that have culminated with the publication of data she and other investigators have obtained, there was no need for Science to publish additional articles. The Wolfe-Simon paper never should have been published. The only responsible action on the part of Science would be to retract the original article. Continue reading Despite refutation, Science arsenic life paper deserves retraction, scientist argues
Journal retracts antipsychotic study when all subjects’ PET scans turn out to be unreliable or invalid
The Journal of Psychiatric Research is retracting a 2010 paper claiming to show a relationship between quetiapine (Seroquel) and certain lab tests and brain scans, after it turns out the brain images were either unreliable or invalid.
Here’s the notice for “Relationship between dopamine D2 receptor occupancy, clinical response, and drug and monoamine metabolites levels in plasma and cerebrospinal fluid. A pilot study in patients suffering from first-episode schizophrenia treated with quetiapine”: Continue reading Journal retracts antipsychotic study when all subjects’ PET scans turn out to be unreliable or invalid
Second helpings: Immunology journal retracts paper for plagiarism, then U Bari investigation reveals fraud
The journal Immunopharmacology and Immunotoxicology has retracted a 2011 paper by an Italian nursing researcher who lifted text and data from a previously published work, and made up results to fill gaps, too.
Here’s the notice: Continue reading Second helpings: Immunology journal retracts paper for plagiarism, then U Bari investigation reveals fraud
A first? Papers retracted for citation manipulation
In what appears to be a first, two papers have been retracted for including citations designed to help another journal improve its impact factor rankings. The articles in The Scientific World Journal cited papers in Cell Transplantation, which in turn appears to have cited to a high degree other journals with shared board members.
Here’s publisher Hindawi’s statement on the matter, which involved their publication The Scientific World Journal: Continue reading A first? Papers retracted for citation manipulation
Canada’s Memorial U says “substantial data misrepresentation” described by retraction notice was unintentional
Yesterday, we reported on a retraction in the Journal of Neuroscience for “substantial data misrepresentation.” When we posted, the authors’ institution, Memorial University in Newfoundland, Canada, had not been able to respond to our questions yet, because of the long Canada Day weekend. This morning, they sent us the following statement, which describes the errors that led to the retraction as unintentional: Continue reading Canada’s Memorial U says “substantial data misrepresentation” described by retraction notice was unintentional
Confusion as JNCI yanks press release on embargoed breast density-cancer study after authors see error
An unusual note went out to reporters on the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (JNCI) press list yesterday:
Please disregard this MTM, which was sent out on Friday June 29, 2012. The data in the study changed so we are no longer putting out a press release for the study.
The original release was headlined:
Percent Density May Be As Strong a Risk Factor as Variation in Breast Density for Breast Cancer
MTM stands for “memo to the media.” What wasn’t clear was whether the new notice meant the release was being pulled back, or the study itself, but the JNCI press office said it was just the release.
But the Mayo Clinic’s Celine Vachon told Retraction Watch: Continue reading Confusion as JNCI yanks press release on embargoed breast density-cancer study after authors see error
Journal of Neuroscience retracts federally funded Canadian study with “substantial data misrepresentation”
The Journal of Neuroscience is retracting a paper by researchers at Memorial University in Newfoundland, Canada, after a university investigation found “substantial data misrepresentation” in the work, which was funded by two major federal agencies.
Here’s the notice: Continue reading Journal of Neuroscience retracts federally funded Canadian study with “substantial data misrepresentation”
Clinical Endoscopy retracts sedation paper, creates neologism in process
Clinical Endoscopy, the official journal of the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, has retracted a 2011 paper on sedation practices.
Although the retraction statement is underpowered for information, it has a charming neologism. To wit, the announcement for the paper, “Comparison of midazolam alone versus midazolam plus propofol during endoscopic submucosal dissection,” is a “noticement.”
Unfortunately, that’s about all that’s interesting about this retraction. Or rather, that’s the only thing on which we can comment, given the notice itself:
Continue reading Clinical Endoscopy retracts sedation paper, creates neologism in process
Does anesthesiology have a problem? Final version of report suggests Fujii will take retraction record, with 172
Japanese investigators have concluded that Yoshitaka Fujii, an expert in postoperative nausea and vomiting whose findings drew scrutiny in 2000 but who continued to publish prolifically for a decade after, fabricated his results in at least 172 published studies.
That number nearly doubles that of the current unofficial retraction record holder, Joachim Boldt.
An inquiry by the Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists (JSA) has determined that Fujii, who was fired in February from his post at Toho University, falsified data in 172 of 212 papers published between 1993 and 2011. Investigators said they found no evidence of fraud in three of the papers, but could not determine whether the results reported in the remaining 37 were reliable.
Of the 172 bogus studies, 126 involved randomized controlled trials. Investigators believe this was not a coincidence: Continue reading Does anesthesiology have a problem? Final version of report suggests Fujii will take retraction record, with 172