Category: united states

Figure dupe sinks cell bio paper

cellular biohemTulane researchers Tong Wu and Chang Han, who have been anonymously accused of figure duplication in the past, have now finally lost a paper for that reason.

The frequent plagiarism tipster Juuichi Jigen (a pseudonym) set up a blog in 2012 alleging that the pair inappropriately reused images in six other papers, though none of those have been retracted. The recent notice, issued at the end of January by the Journal of Cellular Biochemistry, states that the figure duplication was confirmed by the University of Pittsburgh’s Office of Research Integrity. Han, the first author, was at UPitt when the paper was published in 2008, though she moved to join Wu at Tulane in 2009.

Here’s the notice for “Regulation of Wnt/ß-Catenin Pathway by cPLA2α and PPARδ“: Continue reading Figure dupe sinks cell bio paper

Fourth retraction appears for cancer researcher Anil Jaiswal

cancer research 1113The hits keep coming for University of Maryland researcher Anil Jaiswal.

The latest retraction for the cell biologist is in Cancer Research, for a 2007 paper about ways in which the cell tries to protect the tumor suppressor p53. Like the first Jaiswal retraction we covered, the latest notice specifically taps figure duplication as the cause of death, “as a result of an error.” The other two retractions gave no explanation for the withdrawal.

Here’s the notice: Continue reading Fourth retraction appears for cancer researcher Anil Jaiswal

Authors retract 2007 PNAS paper on aging due to figure’s “unintentional anomalies”

pnas 2515The authors of a 2007 PNAS paper that provided molecular details for how calorie restriction may act on Sir2 enzymes to extend life are now retracting their research after discovering a figure was compromised by “several unintentional anomalies in the background image.”

According to study author David W. Piston at Vanderbilt University, first author Qinghong Zhang cut and pasted images together to beautify a figure showing how a form of sugar affects the expression of SIRT1, the mammalian version of the Sir2 enzyme: Continue reading Authors retract 2007 PNAS paper on aging due to figure’s “unintentional anomalies”

“Genuine error” sees expression of concern for vision loss paper

elsevierA duplicated figure has resulted in an expression of concern for a paper in the American Journal of Pathology on a treatment for ocular neovascularization, which causes vision loss.

According to the notice, the corresponding author, David Shima, now at University College London, brought his concern to the journal. He called it a “genuine error” and stated that all the findings had been reproduced.

Unfortunately, Shima claimed the original data are missing, because the institution that owned the information — Eyetech Research Center — has “since gone through several acquisitions.”

Ocular neovascularization occurs when growth signals in the eye stimulate the creation of many new blood vessels. Over time these blood vessels break, causing bleeding and scarring that limits vision. This is called “wet” macular degeneration.

The scientists found that giving patients drugs to limit two different growth factors at the same time is more effective than one at stopping the progression of AMD. This combination method is in stage three clinical trials, though with different drugs than the authors used here.

The paper, published in 2006, has been cited 130 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge. Here’s the EoC for “Inhibition of Platelet-Derived Growth Factor B Signaling Enhances the Efficacy of Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Therapy in Multiple Models of Ocular Neovascularization”:

Continue reading “Genuine error” sees expression of concern for vision loss paper

Unspecified questions earn central line study an expression of concern

ajicThe American Journal of Infection Control has issued an expression of concern for a paper looking at ways to reduce infections associated with central venous catheters, or central lines.

The catheters are placed directly into a large vein and end close to the heart, allowing long-term access for medication or fluid administration. According to the CDC, infections associated with central lines cause thousands of deaths and cost billions of dollars every year.

Here’s the abstract for “Comparison of central line-associated bloodstream infection rates when changing to a zero fluid displacement intravenous needleless connector in acute care settings“: Continue reading Unspecified questions earn central line study an expression of concern

Conflict of interest, figure issues net retraction for cancer paper

am j pathologyTwo major problems sunk this cancer paper.

For one, many of the images were copied from another paper. In addition, one of the authors did not disclose that he was the president of a related company, nor that his company provided reagents for the experiments.

It’s not clear when the paper was published, but The paper was published on October 16, 2014, and a withdrawal notice went up on January 16, 2015. Here’s the retraction for “Enhanced Detection and Phenotypic and Karyotypic in Situ Characterization of Circulating Tumor Cells”: Continue reading Conflict of interest, figure issues net retraction for cancer paper

Retraction Watch “mischaracterized the reason for a retraction:” Harlan Krumholz responds to a post

Harlan Krumholz
Harlan Krumholz

On Friday, we reported on the retraction and republication of a paper in The Lancet. One of the paper’s authors, Yale’s Harlan Krumholz, took issue with how we characterized the reason for the retraction. We offered him a chance to write a guest post about the situation, which we are pleased to publish below. Please see our editor’s note at the end.

Retraction Watch has grown to play a very important role in promoting responsible conduct of scientific research. Its quest to ‘track retractions as a window into the scientific process’ performs a great service to society. They also have a great responsibility to be accurate in their characterizations of retractions, as all are not alike. I was disappointed that they, in my opinion, mischaracterized the reason for a retraction and republication of one of my papers and did not want to retract their own story (do they have a process to evaluate such concerns?).  They said that the retraction occurred because of a major statistical error, when, in my opinion, it was the result of a minor statistical error that affected the results in a very minor way and had no effect on the conclusion.  That seems like a more accurate characterization to me. And it makes a difference to the impression of what happened.

Here is the story: Continue reading Retraction Watch “mischaracterized the reason for a retraction:” Harlan Krumholz responds to a post

Lancet retracts and republishes cardiology paper with admirable notice

logo_lancetOne of the papers from a massive heart disease study in China, published in the Lancet, has been retracted and republished after the authors noticed a statistical error.

The article, by authors from Peking Union Medical College in China, Yale University, and elsewhere, presented the results of the China PEACE-Retrospective Acute Myocardial Infarction Study, part of a national initiative to study and improve care for cardiac problems. After being posted online on June 24, 2014, the authors noticed that they’d incorrectly weighed one of the cities in their calculations, which threw off a number of national estimates.

After the corrections were made, the paper was peer-reviewed again, and reviewers stated that despite the mistakes, the original conclusions were sound.

Today is a banner day on Retraction Watch: This is our second excellent example of transparency in 24 hours, and therefore the second entry in our “doing the right thing” category. An editorial lays out exactly what happened, including a timeline, allowing scientists to feel confident they’re basing the next research step on solid and accurate data. (We also appreciate the hat tip to the Committee on Publication Ethics retraction guidelines, which we often send out to editors of bad notices as a gentle reminder.)

Here’s the notice for “ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in China from 2001 to 2011 (the China PEACE-Retrospective Acute Myocardial Infarction Study): a retrospective analysis of hospital data”: Continue reading Lancet retracts and republishes cardiology paper with admirable notice

Fraud retraction appears for deceased Maryland dental researcher

osomoporeA former dental researcher at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, has lost a 2009 paper in the journal Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology and Endodontology for fabricating his data on an NIH-funded study.

The researcher, Mark A. Scheper, is not identified in the retraction notice as the person implicated in the university investigation. However, one of his co-authors confirmed his involvement. Scheper died in January 2014 at age 45 of natural causes, according to the Maryland State Medical Examiner.

The article was titled “The oncogenic effects of constitutive Stat3 signaling in salivary gland cancer cells are mediated by survivin and modulated by the NSAID sulindac.” It appeared online in March 2009, and has been cited six times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

According to the abstract: Continue reading Fraud retraction appears for deceased Maryland dental researcher

Bad image prompts correction of Harvard-Brigham stem cell paper by Anversa

circresA group of Harvard stem cell researchers who already have one retraction and an expression of concern now have a correction. This one’s in Circulation Research, and it involves an image that previously had been flagged as suspicious in our comments.

The group is led by Piero Anversa, who as we reported last year is one of two researchers suing Harvard because the institution’s investigation into their work

has cost them millions in a forfeited sale of their company, and job offers.

Continue reading Bad image prompts correction of Harvard-Brigham stem cell paper by Anversa