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: united states
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
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In what appears to be a first, two papers have been retracted for including citations designed to help another journal improve its impact factor rankings.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
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
One year later, transcendental meditation study yanked minutes before publication still under review
A paper looking at the use of transcendental meditation to reduce the risk of heart disease, and that was put on hold just 12 minutes before its scheduled publication time, is still under review a year later.
On June 29 of last year, we brought you the news of the highly unusual — if not unprecedented — occurrence at the Archives of Internal Medicine. As we wrote then: Continue reading One year later, transcendental meditation study yanked minutes before publication still under review
ORI finds Parkinson’s-pesticides researcher guilty of faking data; two papers to be retracted
The U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has found that a neuroscientist who studied the effects of pesticides on a mouse model of Parkinson’s disease made up data.
As The Scientist reported on Friday, the ORI found that Mona Thiruchelvam faked cell counts in two grant applications and a number of papers that claimed to show how the pesticides paraquat, maneb, and atrazine might affect parts of the brain involved in Parkinson’s. The Scientist notes: Continue reading ORI finds Parkinson’s-pesticides researcher guilty of faking data; two papers to be retracted
Authors retract PLoS Medicine foreign health aid paper that had criticized earlier Lancet study
On May 8, PLoS Medicine published a paper by Rajaie Batniji and Eran Bendavid of Stanford University, about “whether development assistance for health provided to developing country governments increases health expenditures.”
That paper caught the eye of the Center for Global Development’s David Roodman. He began a May 14 blog post about the study, “The Health Aid Fungibility Debate: Don’t Believe Either Side,” as follows: Continue reading Authors retract PLoS Medicine foreign health aid paper that had criticized earlier Lancet study
Is post-hoc statistical analysis the new fraud detection tool? A new review looks at fraudster Reuben’s work
In the beginning, there was Scott Reuben.
Well, not quite. Reuben, a Massachusetts anesthesiologist who fabricated data and briefly topped our list of most-retracted authors, didn’t invent research fraud, although he did spend six months in federal prison for his crimes. But his case was in no small measure responsible for the birth of this blog, and, well, the rest of human history that followed.
Although Reuben’s retractions are behind him now — his count ends at 22 — and other scientists, including two anesthesiologists, Joachim Boldt and Yoshitaka Fujii, have or likely soon will dramatically eclipsed his mark, a new paper has revisited his publications with an eye toward seeing if they could identify statistical evidence of data manipulation. It’s the same kind of effort that Ed Yong highlighted as noteworthy about the Dirk Smeesters case, which we covered yesterday and which involved an anonymous statistically inclined whistleblower.
Before we get to whether there was evidence of such manipulation Continue reading Is post-hoc statistical analysis the new fraud detection tool? A new review looks at fraudster Reuben’s work
JPET peeves: Paper withdrawn after drug company won’t disclose chemical structure
A group of researchers at the drug company ChemoCentryx is withdrawing a 2012 paper in the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics over failure to appropriately identify the molecule they describe in the article.
The withdrawal notice tells the story: Continue reading JPET peeves: Paper withdrawn after drug company won’t disclose chemical structure
Two new corrections for Utah group that retracted two Cell Metabolism papers for missing notebooks
We have an update on the case of a University of Utah lab that retracted two Cell Metabolism papers last month after a fired lab technician disposed of two lab notebooks without permission. The team has now corrected two other papers, one in Blood and the other in the Journal of Clinical Investigation.
Here’s the notice from Blood: Continue reading Two new corrections for Utah group that retracted two Cell Metabolism papers for missing notebooks