Category: by journal

ORI: Ohio State researcher manipulated two dozen figures in NIH grants, papers

terry elton
Terry Elton, via OSU

Terry S. Elton, a researcher at Ohio State University in Columbus who studies genetic expression in various heart conditions and Down syndrome, has been sanctioned by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity for fabricating and/or falsifying data in a number of NIH grants and resulting papers.

According to an OSU statement sent to Retraction Watch last night, it was an anonymous whistleblower who alerted the university to the potential misconduct in July 2010. The ORI report notes that he two OSU investigations, along with the ORI investigation, found that Elton: Continue reading ORI: Ohio State researcher manipulated two dozen figures in NIH grants, papers

A different tack: A “notice of redundant publication,” rather than a retraction, for duplication

bjogHow should journals deal with duplication — aka “self-plagiarism?”

Scientists have engaged in vigorous debates here on Retraction Watch about whether such duplication is a minor form of scientific misconduct, or just a conflict between the interests of publishers and those of researchers who have better things to do than figure out different ways to describe their materials and methods.

So we thought we’d highlight how an obstetrics and gynecology journal recently handled a six-year-old duplication. Here’s the “notice of redundant publication:” Continue reading A different tack: A “notice of redundant publication,” rather than a retraction, for duplication

Concern — in triplicate — arrives for Poldermans papers

Jacc1212coverThe Journal of the American College of Cardiology, or JACC, has issued expressions of concern for three papers by Don Poldermans, the Dutch cardiologist who was fired earlier this year amid allegations of misconduct.

Cardiobrief’s Larry Husten had the story first.

The, um, heart of the matter is that neither the investigators at Erasmus Medical Center, Poldermans’ former institution, nor the JACC editors, can say whether the researchers conduct rose to the level of fabricating data. As the Notice of Concern states: Continue reading Concern — in triplicate — arrives for Poldermans papers

ORI investigating work from Caltech lab as PNAS paper is retracted

pnas1219The U.S. Office of Research Integrity is investigating work done at a Caltech lab after researchers there couldn’t replicate it, and retracted a paper based on the findings.

Here’s the notice, which ran this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS): Continue reading ORI investigating work from Caltech lab as PNAS paper is retracted

RNA paper retracted for “carelessness in including some of the figures”

molcellbiochemHere at Retraction Watch, we’ve covered retractions for misconduct, journal errors, editorial system hacking and even no particular reason.

And that’s just in the last week.

However, we’ve identified a new reported reason: carelessness. A paper in Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry claimed to show how a tiny RNA causes fat cells to die.

Instead, the paper died.

Turned out that rather than describe previously published data, the authors say they inadvertently included a figure that had already appeared in another paper.

The retraction for “miR-598 induces replicative senescence in human adipose tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cells via silent information regulator 1,” reads, in full: Continue reading RNA paper retracted for “carelessness in including some of the figures”

“Some sentences…are directly taken from other papers, which could be viewed as a form of plagiarism”

plant phys biochemPlant Physiology and Biochemistry has an amusing retraction notice this month that underscores the perils of allowing authors to come up with their own statements.

The paper, “Molecular strategies in manipulation of the starch synthesis pathway for improving storage starch content in plants (review and prospect for increasing storage starch synthesis),” came from a group at Sichuan Agricultural University in China — including its Maize Research Institute — and was published in the December 2012 issue.

Continue reading “Some sentences…are directly taken from other papers, which could be viewed as a form of plagiarism”

Journal of Neuroscience retraction, typically opaque, from author with history of errors

jneuroscienceThe Journal of Neuroscience has retracted a 2011 paper by an international group of scientists, including the prominent Maryland researcher Ronald Dubner, but readers won’t know why.

As the notice “explains“: Continue reading Journal of Neuroscience retraction, typically opaque, from author with history of errors

Dental papers retracted after investigations find “issue with respect to misconduct”

jomfpSometimes, retraction notices offer tantalizing clues, but no real information. Take the case of a paper called “Florid osseous dysplasia,” which was published last year in Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology by a group at Mumbai’s Nair Hospital Dental College and retracted recently.

Here’s the notice, which is suggestive but doesn’t say much: Continue reading Dental papers retracted after investigations find “issue with respect to misconduct”

Another retraction for Pfizer’s experimental cancer treatment figitumumab

6794 BJC_newblue_V1.qxdLast month, we brought you news that Pfizer had retracted a paper in the Journal of Clinical Oncology

purporting to show a benefit of their experimental drug for lung cancer figitumumab after discovering that its clinical lead on the project had done analyses improperly.

There’s been another retraction, of a related paper, in the British Journal of Cancer, “Pre-treatment levels of circulating free IGF-1 identify NSCLC patients who derive clinical benefit from figitumumab.” Here’s the notice: Continue reading Another retraction for Pfizer’s experimental cancer treatment figitumumab

Quantum physicists learn about Heisenberg’s (publishing) uncertainty principle the hard way

tsfcoverAs Werner Heisenberg famously conjectured, you can’t measure an atomic particle’s momentum and position at the same time. But perhaps the principle named for the German physicist and godfather of quantum mechanics should be applied to another important scientific truth: you can’t publish the same article in two different but competing journals.

Just ask a group led by Ted Sargent, a prominent physicist at the University of Toronto. He and his colleagues recently lost a paper in Thin Solid Films — which sounds like it ought to be the name of an indie movie company, dibs! — on quantum dot solar cells. (If those sound familiar to readers of this blog, there’s a good reason. We wrote about the retraction of another quantum dot paper, this one in Nature Photonics, in October of this year.)

Sargent’s article, “Advances in colloidal quantum dot solar cells: The depleted-heterojunction device,” which he wrote with colleagues in Spain and Switzerland, appeared in August 2011. According to the notice: Continue reading Quantum physicists learn about Heisenberg’s (publishing) uncertainty principle the hard way