Category: by journal

PNAS author explains why she didn’t sign retraction notice for potential anti-cancer drug study

On Tuesday, we covered a retraction in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) involving zalutumumab, a compound once being developed for treatments of head and neck cancer. As we noted at the time, the authors decided to retract the paper because they no longer trusted the method they used. One of the authors didn’t sign the notice, and we’ve now heard from her about why.

First, a comment from lead author Paul W.H.I Parren, who tells Retraction Watch: Continue reading PNAS author explains why she didn’t sign retraction notice for potential anti-cancer drug study

Paper linking vitamin C and reduced asthma retracted after authors find “severe” problems with data

It’s never a good sign when a paper has “severe” problems with its data. But when even the researchers are at a loss to explain how those problems made their way into the manuscript, well, that’s downright alarming.

Consider: The journal Clinical and Translational Allergy has retracted a 2011 article by researchers from Egypt and Finland, who have been studying the effects of vitamin C on childhood asthma. In a previous article, published in 2009 in Acta Paediatrica, members of the team reported that Continue reading Paper linking vitamin C and reduced asthma retracted after authors find “severe” problems with data

Redox, redux: Journal pulls paper over data problems

Antioxidants & Redox Signalling has issued much more detailed retraction notice for a paper it pulled last year that was marred by duplicate data.

As we reported then, the journal’s initial notice for the 2011 article, titled “Inhibition of LXRa-dependent steatosis and oxidative injury by liquiritigenin, a licorice flavonoid, as mediated with Nrf2 activation,” was underwhelming:

THIS WORK HAS BEEN RETRACTED BY THE AUTHORS

Although we learned at the time that a reader, Paul Brookes, of the University of Rochester, had raised concerns about the article to the editors of ARS and other publications, we were glad to see that ARS has decided to make a clean breast of matters. The study has been cited by other papers three times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

Here’s the notice, from editor Chandan K. Sen: Continue reading Redox, redux: Journal pulls paper over data problems

Another non-unanimous PNAS retraction, for potential anti-cancer drug, after company’s method proves unreliable

There’s another non-unanimous retraction in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) this week, and this one involves an anti-tumor antibody that may not be what the authors originally thought it was.

According to the notice for “The antibody zalutumumab inhibits epidermal growth factor receptor signaling by limiting intra- and intermolecular flexibility:” Continue reading Another non-unanimous PNAS retraction, for potential anti-cancer drug, after company’s method proves unreliable

Authors retract paper claiming antidepressants prevent suicide

The authors of a study allegedly showing that antidepressants prevent suicide have retracted it over unspecified errors. Here’s the notice:

At the request of the authors and in agreement with the Editor-in-Chief and Wiley-Blackwell, the following article “Antidepressant medication prevents suicide in depression”. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2010;122:454–460 has been retracted. The retraction has been requested and agreed due to unintentional errors in the analysis of the data presented.

The original paper linked “data on the toxicological detection of antidepressants in 18 922 suicides in Sweden 1992–2003” to “registers of psychiatric hospitalization as well as registers with sociodemographic data.” It found: Continue reading Authors retract paper claiming antidepressants prevent suicide

A non-unanimous retraction in PNAS after authors are “unable to reproduce the data”

A group of authors has retracted a 2009 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) after subsequent experiments suggested their original results weren’t holding up.

According to the notice for the paper, which has been cited 8 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge: Continue reading A non-unanimous retraction in PNAS after authors are “unable to reproduce the data”

Journal pulls four breast cancer papers for duplication

The journal Breast Cancer: Targets and Therapy, a Dove Medical Press title, has retracted four articles from a group of Indian researchers over what it said were “unacceptable levels” of duplication with other published work. (Such a construction leaves us wondering what might constitute “acceptable levels” of duplication, but that’s for a different post.)

The articles were submitted by Rajeev Singhai, who is listed as being with Grant Medical College and the Sir J J Group of Hospitals, in Mumbai. According to his After College page, Singhai received his PhD in 2011 and is now a research fellow.

As the notice states: Continue reading Journal pulls four breast cancer papers for duplication

Society error leads to published — then retracted — Alzheimer’s abstract from top group

Alzheimer’s & Dementia has retracted a meeting abstract the journal published without the OK of the researchers, a top group from Harvard, who submitted it but withdrew the work before the conference.

That, as they say, might require some unpacking. Maybe this will make things clearer.

Raj Hooli, a graduate student in the lab of Rudolph Tanzi, a leading neuroscientist at Harvard — where he holds the Joseph P. and Rose F. Kennedy endowed chair of neurology — had submitted the abstract, “Genome-wide assessment of copy number variations in early-onset Alzheimer’s disease,” for consideration at the International Conference on Alzheimer’s Disease (ICAD).

As Tanzi explains: Continue reading Society error leads to published — then retracted — Alzheimer’s abstract from top group

Spanish veterinary researcher under suspicion of creating “ghost” author, fabricating data

via Wikimedia

The Spanish press has picked up on the story of a prominent veterinary scientist in that country who has been accused of research misconduct.

According to El Pais, the researcher, Jesús Ángel Lemus, whose areas of interest include the effects of toxins on birds, ran into trouble in December when colleagues complained to the Ethics Committee of the Higher Council for Scientific Research about the reproducibility of his results and other problems. That triggered an inquiry by the CSIC into Lemus’ body of work, an investigation that, evidently, could not find a body.

Per El Pais (courtesy of Google Translate): Continue reading Spanish veterinary researcher under suspicion of creating “ghost” author, fabricating data

Five papers by prominent cardiologist Hiroaki Matsubara subject to Expression of Concern

Hiroaki Matsubara

The American Heart Association, which publishes a number of journals, has issued an Expression of Concern about five papers in three of their publications, following allegations of image manipulation. All of the papers include Hiroaki Matsubara, of Kyoto Prefectural University, as a co-author.

The notice begins:

It has come to the attention of the American Heart Association (AHA), in a public manner, that there are questions concerning a number of figures in several AHA journals’ articles…

The “public manner” was three posts last year on the Abnormal Science blog, available here, here and here, alleging that images were manipulated in the manuscripts, and that histology slides were reused.

The notice continues: Continue reading Five papers by prominent cardiologist Hiroaki Matsubara subject to Expression of Concern