Category: by journal

Author who took responsibility for errors in retracted PNAS paper cites it…in error

via Wikimedia

One of the issues we’ve touched on at Retraction Watch is what happens once papers are retracted. A few studies have found that other authors continue to cite those studies anyway, without noting their withdrawal from the literature. A more recent paper found that retractions are linked to a dramatic decline in citations (see last half of post). And we’ve reported on one case in which the authors of a retracted study decided not to cite it at all when they republished their findings elsewhere.

But it seems unusual for an author to cite his or her own retracted work without noting it had been retracted. That’s what happened in a recently published PLoS ONE paper, “Loss of Secreted Frizzled-Related Protein 4 Correlates with an Aggressive Phenotype and Predicts Poor Outcome in Ovarian Cancer Patients.” The second to last paragraph of that paper ends: Continue reading Author who took responsibility for errors in retracted PNAS paper cites it…in error

On second thought: Transplant paper retracted for researcher error

When a group from Saint Louis University published a case report in Pediatric Transplantation on a baby with an unusual infection after kidney transplant surgery, they thought they’d stumbled on a first. At the time they wrote:

[Acalculous candidal cholecystitis] caused by Candida is an uncommon entity usually seen in the critically ill. Here, we present the case of an 18-month-old renal transplant patient who developed candidal AAC during the post-operative period. Previous articles have addressed acalculous cholecystitis secondary to a variety of causes, or addressed a wide variety of Candida infections in the biliary tract, but this is the first discussion of cholecystitis caused by Candida without confounding factors such as biliary calculi or multiple pathogens. After the discussion of our patient’s case, we also reviewed the English-language literature regarding candidal AAC and discussed diagnosis, treatment, and mortality.

A year later, however, the group is walking back their article. A retraction notice in the journal states that: Continue reading On second thought: Transplant paper retracted for researcher error

Two more retractions in respiratory journal as University of Louisville completes investigation

Last July, we reported on four retractions by a group of researchers at the University of Louisville, and we noted that the scientists’ work was under investigation. That investigation has apparently concluded, according to a retraction notice in the American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology for two of their papers: Continue reading Two more retractions in respiratory journal as University of Louisville completes investigation

Gastro journal retracts duplicate review, but what really happened?

Current Opinion in Gastroenterology is a bimonthly journal “offering a unique and wide ranging perspective on the key developments in the field” that “features hand-picked review articles from our team of expert editors.”

Apparently, those hands picked what amounted to the same “unique” article twice. The journal is retracting a 2004 paper, “Enteral feeding,” by Khursheed Jeejeebhoy, an expert in nutrition at the University of Toronto (he’s now emeritus), because it duplicates a 2003 paper with the same title.

Here’s what the notice, which, lamentably, sits behind a paywall, has to say: Continue reading Gastro journal retracts duplicate review, but what really happened?

Journal retracts paper “whose topic bears no relationship whatsoever” to publication’s subject matter

The journal Molecules has retracted a paper — “A comparative study of nozzle/diffuser micropumps with novel valves” — that they apparently never should have published in the first place. From the notice, to which the original paper has yet to link: Continue reading Journal retracts paper “whose topic bears no relationship whatsoever” to publication’s subject matter

JAMA awaiting final OHRP decision on Harvard-led paper whose authors didn’t fully disclose risks to elderly

Earlier this month, the U.S. Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) told a group of researchers led by a Harvard Medical School professor that they hadn’t been forthcoming enough about the risks elderly subjects faced in their trial.

As the Boston Globe reported: Continue reading JAMA awaiting final OHRP decision on Harvard-led paper whose authors didn’t fully disclose risks to elderly

The first-ever English language retraction (1756)?

Benjamin Wilson self-portrait, via Wikimedia http://bit.ly/zkWs5C

We tend to focus on new retractions here at Retraction Watch, and find it difficult enough to even keep up with the hundreds per year. But sometimes it’s illuminating to take a dip into history, so when Richard van Noorden alerted us to what may be the earliest-ever English language retraction, we thought we’d take a look.

The notice appeared in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society on June 24, 1756. It reads: Continue reading The first-ever English language retraction (1756)?

Climate science critic Wegman reprimanded by one university committee while another finds no misconduct

The author of a controversial and now-retracted paper questioning the science of climate change has been reprimanded by his university for plagiarism. According to USA Today’s Dan Vergano, who broke the news:

[Edward] Wegman was the senior author of a 2006 report to Congress that criticized climate scientists as excessively collaborative, and found fault with a statistical technique used in two climate studies. Portions of the report analysis were published in the journal, Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, in a 2008 study.

University of Massachusetts professor Raymond Bradley filed a complaint against Wegman in 2010, noting that portions of the report and the CSDA study appeared lifted from one of his textbooks and from other sources, including Wikipedia. CSDA later retracted the study, noting the plagiarism, last year.

Here’s the explicit retraction notice: Continue reading Climate science critic Wegman reprimanded by one university committee while another finds no misconduct

Inquiry at Maimonides triggers two retractions in Chest, and retraining for the researchers

The journal Chest has retracted two publications — a paper and an earlier meeting abstract — from a group of researchers at Maimonides Medical Center in New York City after learning that the investigators mischaracterized the nature of their study. In addition to losing the two publications, the authors were ordered to undergo a refresher in proper research methods.

Here’s the notice for the abstract, which has been cited once, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge: Continue reading Inquiry at Maimonides triggers two retractions in Chest, and retraining for the researchers

Dental X-rays linked to Alzheimer’s disease? Abstract saying so temporarily withdrawn

Alzheimer’s & Dementia has “temporarily withdrawn” a 2012 abstract, slated for publication next month, linking Alzheimer’s disease with exposure to dental x-rays.

The author is Caroline Rodgers, a self-described “independent writer/researcher who investigates public health issues and advocates for change.” Although we can’t find the text, we’re guessing that its premise is similar to that of her 2011 paper in Medical Hypotheses, titled “Dental X-ray exposure and Alzheimer’s disease: a hypothetical etiological association.”

Here’s the abstract from that paper: Continue reading Dental X-rays linked to Alzheimer’s disease? Abstract saying so temporarily withdrawn