Category: by journal

Student denied credit, math article retracted

inequalA math paper in the Journal of Inequalities and Applications has been retracted after it was discovered the authors had included a student’s work without acknowledging her.

One of the authors, however, told us it was an honest mistake, and that the editor pushed for retraction instead of correction “to protect this journal and its impact factor.”

Here’s the notice for “On the Kirchhoff matrix, a new Kirchhoff index and the Kirchhoff energy”: Continue reading Student denied credit, math article retracted

Quantum physics paper pulled for “serious theoretical errors,” notice accidentally paywalled

physicalreviewlettersA paper on photonic quantum walks has been retracted over a theoretical disagreement.

The notice is also paywalled, which the editorial director has assured us is a mistake that is being corrected.

We sent the COPE guidelines on retraction to the American Physical Society, which publishes Physical Review Letters. Editorial director Dan Kulp told us the paywall was the unintentional consequence of a web redesign, and that they are in the process of restoring public access to “all Errata-types, including Retractions.”

Here’s the rest of his statement: Continue reading Quantum physics paper pulled for “serious theoretical errors,” notice accidentally paywalled

“Our real intention was to emphasize, not plagiarize”

joms.13692132This one’s not a retraction, but rather a back and forth of letters to the editor concerning accusations of plagiarism.

Dentists Bryan and Paul Jacobs, a father and son team, wrote a paper describing a novel surgical technique in March 2013. In October 2013, several Croatian dentists published their own paper using the technique.

A year later, the story has gotten a little more interesting. The November issue of the Journal of Oral and Mixillofacial Surgery, which published the second article, has two letters. One, from the Jacobses, accuses the Croatian authors of plagiarism. The second is a response from author Dragana Gabrić Pandurić, claiming “our real intention was to emphasize, not plagiarize, their work.”

Here’s the letter from Bryan and Paul Jacobs (paywalled): Continue reading “Our real intention was to emphasize, not plagiarize”

Failure to disclose drug company sponsor among litany of reasons for cancer retraction

tumor biologyThis one’s a real mess.

In June, a paper in Tumor Biology was retracted for at least four reasons, including bad data and hiding a trial sponsor (Merck). Some people who contributed work weren’t cited; at least one author had no idea his name would be on it. And that’s just what they tell us in the notice.

Here’s the notice for “Neutropenia and invasive fungal infection in patients with hematological malignancies treated with chemotherapy: a multicenter, prospective, non-interventional study in China:” Continue reading Failure to disclose drug company sponsor among litany of reasons for cancer retraction

Authors retract PNAS paper questioned on PubPeer after original films can’t be found

pnas31912PubPeer leads the way again: The authors of a paper about Parkinson’s disease in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) have retracted it, several months after a commenter highlighted the exact issue that led to the article’s demise.

The paper, originally published in September 2013, was called into question by a commenter on PubPeer in July 2014, who identified two of the paper’s figures as duplications: Continue reading Authors retract PNAS paper questioned on PubPeer after original films can’t be found

Dr. Oz: Following green coffee bean diet retraction, site scrubbed, “further study is needed”

green coffee beanOn Monday, we were first to report that a study of green coffee bean extract for weight loss touted on the Dr. Oz Show had been retracted.

That story has been widely picked up by the media, including The Washington Post, which yesterday reported that the show had posted a statement about the development: Continue reading Dr. Oz: Following green coffee bean diet retraction, site scrubbed, “further study is needed”

Doing the right thing: Authors retract PNAS paper when new experiments show “conclusion was incorrect”

pnascoverResearchers in Sweden and Australia have retracted a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) after follow-up experiments disproved their conclusions.

Here’s the notice for “Dominant suppression of inflammation by glycan-hydrolyzed IgG,” which is signed by all nine of the paper’s authors: Continue reading Doing the right thing: Authors retract PNAS paper when new experiments show “conclusion was incorrect”

PubPeer Selections: More stem cell questions; “is the hassle of a correction really needed?”

pubpeerHere’s another installment of PubPeer Selections: Continue reading PubPeer Selections: More stem cell questions; “is the hassle of a correction really needed?”

Authors retract green coffee bean diet paper touted by Dr. Oz

green coffee beanTwo authors of a 2012 paper sponsored by a company that made grand claims about green coffee bean extract’s abilities to help people lose weight have retracted it. The study was cited by The Dr. Oz Show, and last month it cost the company a $3.5 million settlement with the Feds.

Here’s the notice for “Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, linear dose, crossover study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a green coffee bean extract in overweight subjects,” a paper originally published in Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity: Targets and Therapy: Continue reading Authors retract green coffee bean diet paper touted by Dr. Oz

Journal of Neuroscience still won’t explain author-initiated retractions

journal of neuroscienceThe Journal of Neuroscience hasn’t changed its policy of not explaining retractions if authors don’t want to, as this October 8 notice attests.

Here’s the notice for “Coordinated Regulation of Hepatic Energy Stores by Leptin and Hypothalamic Agouti-Related Protein:” Continue reading Journal of Neuroscience still won’t explain author-initiated retractions