The Journal of Neuro-Oncology wants you to ignore the following paper: “A single chain (scFv425):sTRAIL fusion protein with specificity for the EGF receptor is effective in vitro but not in an in vivo brain tumor animal model.”
The 2007 article, from a group in The Netherlands, suffered from two fatal problems. According to the retraction notice: Continue reading “This publication should be ignored”: Authorship issues, flawed data fell neuro-oncology paper
Amid criticisms this week that his former university didn’t do all it should have to investigate his work, another paper by Dirk Smeesters has been retracted.
Here’s the notice for “The effect of color (red versus blue) on assimilation versus contrast in prime-to-behavior effects,” which appeared in The Journal of Experimental Social Psychology: Continue reading Retraction three for Dirk Smeesters
Dipak Das, the resveratrol researcher found guilty of more than 100 counts of misconduct by the University of Connecticut, has two more retractions for his resume. But that’s not the most interesting part of this post, so keep reading after the notices.
Both retractions appeared in the October 2012 issue of the Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine. Here’s the first notice: Continue reading Odd: Retractions 18 and 19 for Dipak Das, and a new paper in the same journal, as if nothing were amiss
The Journal of Vascular Surgery is retracting — with vigor — a paper it published online in March after discovering that the authors had published essentially the same article for the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology some months earlier.
Both papers are titled “Randomized controlled trial comparing treatment outcome of two compression bandaging systems and standard care without compression in patients with venous leg ulcers.” The work was funded by the Health, Welfare and Food Bureau of Hong Kong and a grant from Lohmann & Rauscher GmbH & Co KG, a German company that makes compression bandages and other surgical supplies.
According to the retraction notice in JVS: Continue reading Double bind: Duplication of bandaging paper leads to retraction
Diederik Stapel has three more retractions, making 31.
The most recent three we’ve found all appear in the European Journal of Social Psychology: Continue reading Diederik Stapel notches retractions 29, 30, and 31
The Accounting Review, a publication of the American Accounting Association, has retracted a 2010 paper, but the reason for the move is less than clear.
The article, “A Field Experiment Comparing the Outcomes of Three Fraud Brainstorming Procedures: Nominal Group, Round Robin, and Open Discussion,” was by James E. Hunton, an award-winning accountancy prof at Bentley University in Waltham, Mass., and Anna Gold [updated 1/22/13 to update link], of Erasmus University in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. It has been cited 24 times, according to Google Scholar.
According to the retraction notice: Continue reading Accounting fraud paper retracted for “misstatement”
A group of Dutch researchers has retracted a paper they published in March after apparently learning that they’d bungled their statistical analysis in the study.
The article, “Effects of a pre-visit educational website on information recall and needs fulfilment in breast cancer genetic counselling, a randomized controlled trial,” was published in Breast Cancer Research by Akke Albada of the Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research and colleagues.
But according to the notice, Utrecht, we have a problem: Continue reading Intent was there, but not the intention-to-treat analysis: Breast cancer study retracted
Achtentwintig.
That’s 28 in Dutch, and is the number of retractions so far racked up by Diederik Stapel, according to our count.
The latest two to come to our attention are in the British Journal of Social Psychology, where Stapel has already had a retraction.
Here’s one notice: Continue reading And then there were 28: Two more retractions for Diederik Stapel
The retraction counts keep mounting for two Retraction Watch frequent flyers.
First, Diederik Stapel’s 26th retraction, according to our count. Psychologist Stapel admitted to making up data in dozens of studies, and is also facing a criminal inquiry for misuse of funds.
Here’s the notice: Continue reading Lemus, Stapel each rack up another retraction
The authors of a study on cancer incidence and survival in the Dutch migrant community have retracted it after realizing they’d made some errors that significantly affected the results.
But in what seems like an appropriate reward for coming forward, the newly analyzed data, with additional information, will be part of a forthcoming paper in another journal by the same authors.
The original retrospective study came out in May 2011 in the European Journal of Cancer Prevention and found that risk and survival of breast and stomach cancers differed depending on the person’s mother country. The problem was that the study jumbled up many of the participants’ homelands during the analysis.
The authors issued the following retraction: Continue reading Jumbled analysis leads to retraction of cancer study — but also another paper