Category: by journal

Plagiarism count for mathematician updated to four papers

S00220396After we reported on a retraction for a 13-year old paper by Mohammed Aassila, a reader alerted us to two retractions and an editorial notice for the mathematician. Each of the notes is several years old.

That makes a total of four problematic papers for Aassila. Each is plagued by the same thing: plagiarism.

Here is the retraction note for “The influence of nonlocal nonlinearities on the long time behavior of solutions of diffusion problems,” published in the Journal of Differential Equations:

Continue reading Plagiarism count for mathematician updated to four papers

Lesson learned: “What makes a journal great?” essay pulled for plagiarism

nmjcover

In 2011, a Nigerian journal published an essay entitled “What Makes a Journal Great” by its newly appointed editor, outlining his editorial philosophy — a philosophy that apparently includes lifting text from another source.

That’s right — the Nigerian Medical Journal is now retracting the essay by Francis A. Uba, a surgeon who currently is provost of the college of medicine at Benue State University, after discovering it bore a “close resemblance” to a previous article (euphemism alert):

Continue reading Lesson learned: “What makes a journal great?” essay pulled for plagiarism

“Fabricated results” retract JAMA clinical trial, plus a sub-analysis of the data

Screen Shot 2015-09-14 at 11.00.11 AMA JAMA clinical trial that suggested a blood pressure drug could help patients increase their physical fitness, and a sub-analysis of those data, have been retracted after “an admission of fabricated results” by the first author on both papers.

The three-year clinical trial was published in JAMA in 2013.  It was retracted this morning.

The trial found ramipril helped patients with artery disease walk longer and with less pain, according to the abstract:

Among patients with intermittent claudication, 24-week treatment with ramipril resulted in significant increases in pain-free and maximum treadmill walking times compared with placebo. This was associated with a significant increase in the physical functioning component of the SF-36 score.

The retraction note explains how the fabricated data came to light: 

Continue reading “Fabricated results” retract JAMA clinical trial, plus a sub-analysis of the data

Anti-fish oil researcher netted two more retractions

Screen Shot 2015-08-17 at 10.11.25 AM
Brian Peskin

Earlier this year, Food and Nutrition Sciences retracted two papers from an author who criticized highly popular fish oil supplements after an additional round of peer review concluded his papers present a “biased interpretation,” among other issues.

Last year, Brian Peskin lost a paper for an “undeclared competing interest” — namely, that he held patents and directed a company associated with essential fatty acids.

In place of fish oil, Peskin touts plant-based supplements for treating cardiovascular disease. From the abstract of the freshly-retracted “Why Fish Oil Fails to Prevent or Improve CVD: A 21st Century Analysis,” he claims that Parent Essential Oils (PEOs) — such as alpha-linolenic acid, which can be converted into the EPA and DHA found in fish oil — “fulfill fish oil’s failed promise”: Continue reading Anti-fish oil researcher netted two more retractions

Retraction no. 8 (and a 1/2) hits former Duke researcher Erin Potts-Kant

American Journal of Physiology - Lung Cellular and Molecular PhysiologyAnother retraction and a correction that retracts two figures — ie, a partial retraction — have been posted for Duke University lung researchers, Erin Potts-Kant and Michael Foster.

These latest notices move the count up to 8.5 retractions for Potts-Kant and 7.5 for Foster (counting the partial retraction as 1/2), along with the correction for both. In both cases and in a familiar note from previous retractions, authors found “potential discrepancies” between two sets of data (partial retraction) and study figures that weren’t “reliable” (retraction).

The retraction comes after the authors discovered problems with three of the study figures. In the corrected paper, the authors were able to validate some of their findings after repeating the experiments, but retracted two of the study figures that they were “unable to verify.”

Continue reading Retraction no. 8 (and a 1/2) hits former Duke researcher Erin Potts-Kant

Researchers call for retraction of NEJM paper showing dangers of e-cigarettes

NEJMResearchers and advocates are calling for the retraction of a 2015 letter in the New England Journal of Medicine that suggested that e-cigarettes are as harmful – if not more than – traditional cigarettes.

The NEJM paper reported that e-cigarettes expose smokers to significant amounts of formaldehyde, which the authors calculated could raise lifetime cancer risk by 5-15 fold compared to the risk for regular smokers. Critics, however, have claimed that to obtain such high levels of formaldehyde, the NEJM authors superheated the vapor from the e-cigs to levels that would create a well-known, acrid puff called a “dry puff.” This sensation, they say, is so terrible that no self-respecting “vaper” would consider repeating it. In other words, allege the e-cigarette supporters, the conditions described in the Letter—which was widely reported—were not relevant to human health.

This week, Addiction published a letter from critics of the NEJM paper, along with extensive supplementary materials, a reply from some of the NEJM Letter authors, and a response letter from the critics.

In their first Addiction letter, “Research letter on e-cigarettes was so misleading it should be retracted,” authors Clive Bates and cardiologist Konstantinos Farsalinos write: Continue reading Researchers call for retraction of NEJM paper showing dangers of e-cigarettes

Divorce study felled by a coding error gets a second chance

home_cover (1)A journal has published a corrected version of a widely reported study linking severe illness and divorce rates after it was retracted in July due to a small coding error.

The original, headline-spawning conclusion was that the risk of divorce in a heterosexual marriage increases when the wife falls ill, but not the husband. The revised results — published again in the Journal of Health and Social Behavior, along with lengthy explanations from the authors and editors — are more nuanced: Gender only significantly correlates with divorce rate in the case of heart disease.

The authors’ note, from Iowa State’s Amelia Karraker and Kenzie Latham, at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, explains that the coding error led them to over-estimate how many marriages ended in divorce:

Continue reading Divorce study felled by a coding error gets a second chance

“Obviously stolen” figure squashes mosquito paper in author’s second retraction

jmr-cover2015The Journal of Mosquito Research has retracted a paper because it contains a figure that “was obviously stolen” from another paper.

The retracted paper’s first author Emtithal M. Abd El-Samiee is now up to two retractions, by our count. Last month, we reported on her fruit fly paper, felled by a faulty gene sequence. On the paper, she is listed as an entomologist at Cairo University.

The note tells us where the figure was stolen from:

Continue reading “Obviously stolen” figure squashes mosquito paper in author’s second retraction

Years after papers were withdrawn, JBC issues notices

Journal of Biological Chemistry.coverThe Journal of Biological Chemistry has posted withdrawal notices for six papers that had already been withdrawn, some more than a decade ago, in an effort to resolve “PubMed indexing problems.”

Each paper had been pulled by the author before it appeared in print, but still appeared online on the the journal’s website and in PubMed. 

By our count, the journal has posted six notices so far, and said we should expect to see more in the future.

Kaoru Sakabe the Manager of Publication Issues at the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, which publishes JBC, provided a statement on the new withdrawal notices: Continue reading Years after papers were withdrawn, JBC issues notices

How long does it take to retract a paper? A look at the Eric Poehlman record

oriweb_logoIn 2005, the U.S. Office of Research Integrity announced that obesity researcher Eric Poehlman had committed misconduct in 10 published papers. You might think that all of those ten articles would have been retracted a decade later.

You’d be wrong. Only six of them have. Here’s what Elizabeth Wager (a member of the board of directors of The Center For Scientific Integrity, our parent non-profit organization) found when she went looking through the record. Continue reading How long does it take to retract a paper? A look at the Eric Poehlman record