West Virginia University biologists have retracted two papers on insecticides for fruit pests due to a confidentiality agreement with a chemical manufacturer stating that the “results should not be published.”
The retracted 2014 articles in Arthropod Management Tests, “Control of Internal Lepidoptera and other insect pests in apple, 2013” and “Control of Oriental Fruit Moth and other insect pests in peach, 2013,” were written by WVU entomologist Daniel Frank and plant pathologist Alan Biggs.
We’ve been unable to find abstracts for the papers, but here is a sister paper Frank and Biggs published in 2012,“Control of Internal Lepidoptera and other insect pests in apple, 2012,” evaluating various insecticides for the control of internal lepidoptera on an experimental plot of Red Delicious apple trees in West Virginia.
Here’s the to-the-point retraction note, which is identical for each paper: Continue reading The “results should not be published:” Company confidentiality agreement squashes two insecticide papers
A paper on the biological insecticide Cry protein — most famously produced by genetically modified “Bt” corn — has been retracted because the authors couldn’t reproduce the findings.
The initial paper concluded that their modified gene produced a Cry protein that was significantly more toxic than the one currently spliced into food crops to make them resistant to moths, beetles, and other insects. However, when repeating the experiments, the modified proteins weren’t any more deadly than the original version.
Here is the notice: Continue reading Cry me a retraction: Scientists pull Cry protein paper for irreproducibility
Pro-tip: If you’re going to try to publish your work twice, don’t give editors a reason to go searching the internet for your previous work.
Here’s case in point, a retraction notice from the Botswana Journal of Agriculture & Applied Sciences: Continue reading Incomplete reference helps editor find duplicate paper — and retract article
A group of authors in China has lost their 2011 paper in Bioresource Technology on pig poop because the journal detected a whiff of the familiar in a previously published article by other researchers in the same journal (a major tsk tsk and, well, oops).
The article, “Feasibility of biogas production from anaerobic co-digestion of herbal-extraction residues with swine manure,” came from a team at Nanchang University. Except, well, not really, as we’ll see. According to its abstract:
Continue reading If it smells like pig sh@#, it probably is pig sh@#: A stinky retraction
The journal Food and Bioproducts Processing has retracted a 2012 article on apple pomace — the remnants of a pressed fruit — by a group from India.
The reason? Turns out the paper “Utility of apple pomace as a substrate for various products: A review,” fell a little to close to the tree.
Here’s the retraction notice: Continue reading Forbidden fruit: apple pomace paper retracted for plagiarism
Plant Physiology, the official journal of the American Society of Plant Biologists, has retracted a 2004 article by a team of ag industry researchers, including a former husband-wife duo, for what could be misconduct by the husband.
The retraction notice is vague enough, however, that we’re not entirely sure what went wrong, and no one wants to help us confirm — or even attempted to disprove — our inferences. Continue reading Spud dud, as agricultural industry potato paper gets pulled a decade after publication