Category: plos one

A researcher at the University of Cambridge has had two papers subjected to expressions of concern by the editors of PLOS ONE for image problems.

The expressions of concern for “The Coordination of Cell Growth during Fission Yeast Mating Requires Ras1-GTP Hydrolysis” and “The Role of the RACK1 Ortholog Cpc2p in Modulating Pheromone-Induced Cell Cycle Arrest in Fission Yeast” are extensive. They both refer to multiple “discontinuities,” “similarities,” and other issues.

The common author on the two papers is Graham Ladds, who told Retraction Watch that no other papers would be affected. He said that

Continue reading ‘Exceptionally silly mistakes’: PLOS ONE flags two papers by Cambridge researcher for image issues

More than five years after comments appeared on PubPeer about a 2012 paper in PLoS ONE with a raft of problematic images — and a deceased member of the group whom the corresponding author suggests might have been able to support the validity of the data — the journal has retracted the article.

The article, “Placental expression of CD100, CD72 and CD45 is dysregulated in human miscarriage,” was written by a team of researchers at the Università Politecnica delle Marche, in Ancona, Italy. The first, and corresponding, author of the paper was Teresa Lorenzi, of the school’s Division of Neuroscience and Cell Biology.

The paper has 19 citations, including two in 2019, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science. The lengthy notice begins with a rundown of 14 questions about three of the paper’s figures. We’ll spare you the entire catalog of ships, but here are a few examples: 

Continue reading Death, retirement, and inability to contact authors leads to retraction of paper first flagged five years ago

A group of dentistry researchers in Japan, whose work on stem cells has been the subject of an institutional investigation, have now lost two papers in PLOS ONE for image problems. 

The authors, from Aichi Gakuin University in Nagoya, were led by Makio Mogi, a medicinal biochemist at the school. Mogi asked for at least one of the retractions. 

The first article, published in 2013, was titled “Matrix metalloproteinase-3 in odontoblastic cells derived from Ips cells: unique proliferation response as odontoblastic cells derived from ES cells.” It has been cited 18 times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science. According to the notice: 

Continue reading Stem cell researchers have papers retracted for image manipulation

The leader of an international team of genetics researchers is seething after a journal responded to critical tweets about their paper by issuing an expression of concern. 

The article, “Exome sequencing in multiple sclerosis families identifies 12 candidate genes and nominates biological pathways for the genesis of disease,” was published in PLOS Genetics in early June 2019 by a group led by Carles Vilariño-Güell, of the Department of Medical Genetics at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver.

Less than a week after publication, according to Vilariño-Güell, the journal notified him that: 

Continue reading ‘Science by tweet’ prompts expression of concern, irking authors

The authors of a 2019 paper in PLOS One on rocks in China have retracted the article for “misrepresentation of the results and data.”

The article, “Impacts of rock properties on Danxia landform formation based on lithological experiments at Kongtongshan National Geopark, northwest China,” was written by a group from Sun Yat-sen University and Hainan University. The researchers declared that: 

Continue reading Geology paper has a rocky road, is now retracted

A pair of perfume researchers in England have lost a 2019 paper on what makes a scent appealing because, ahem, something about the data didn’t smell quite right. 

The article was titled “Social success of perfumes,” and it appeared in July in PLOS ONE. There was a press release and a university writeup about the paper — but not, we should note, about the retraction.

The authors were Vaiva Vasiliauskaite and Tim S. Evans, of the Theoretical Physics Group and Centre for Complexity Science at Imperial College London. 

The abstract of the study stated that:

Continue reading PLOS ONE retracts perfume study when data don’t pass the sniff test

While the presence of publication bias – the selective publishing of positive studies – in science is well known, debate continues about how extensive such bias truly is and the best way to identify it.

The most recent entrant in the debate is a paper by Robbie van Aert and co-authors, who have published a study titled “Publication bias examined in meta-analyses from psychology and medicine: A meta-meta-analysis” in PLoS ONE. Van Aert, a postdoc at the Meta-Research Center in the Department of Methodology and Statistics at Tilburg University, Netherlands, has been involved in the Open Science Collaboration’s psychology reproducibility project but has now turned his attention to understanding the extent of publication bias in the literature.

Using a sample of studies of psychology and medicine, the new “meta-meta-analysis” diverges from “previous research showing rather strong indications for publication bias” and instead suggests “only weak evidence for the prevalence of publication bias.” The analysis found mild publication bias influences psychology and medicine similarly.

Retraction Watch asked van Aert about his study’s findings. His answers have been lightly edited for clarity and length.

RW: How much are empiric analyses of publication bias influenced by the methods used? Based on your work, do you believe there is a preferred method to look at bias?

Continue reading Just how common is positive publication bias? Here’s one researcher who’s trying to figure that out