Category: freely available

Author break prompts retraction of bone protein paper

ejpcoverThe European Journal of Pharmacology has — against its will, it would seem — retracted a 2012 paper by a group of Chinese heart researchers embroiled in a what appears to be a rather messy authorship dispute.

The article, “The effect of alendronate on the expression of osteopontin and osteoprotegerin in calcified aortic tissue of the rat,”  came from the Institute of Cardiovascular Disease at Tongji Hospital, part of of Huazhong University of Science and Technology.

As the retraction notice states:

Continue reading Author break prompts retraction of bone protein paper

Tenth retraction appears for Jesús Lemus, this one in PLOS ONE

plos oneJust two days ago, we covered the ninth retraction for Jesús Lemus, “the veterinary researcher whose work colleagues have had trouble verifying, including being unable to confirm the identity of one of his co-authors.” And already another of his retractions has appeared in one of our daily alerts.

This one appears in PLOS ONE, for “Infectious Offspring: How Birds Acquire and Transmit an Avian Polyomavirus in the Wild:” Continue reading Tenth retraction appears for Jesús Lemus, this one in PLOS ONE

“Ephemeral nature” of samples — and co-author — leads to ninth Jesús Lemus retraction

j app ecolJesús Lemus — the veterinary researcher whose work colleagues have had trouble verifying, including being unable to confirm the identity of one of his co-authors — has notched his ninth retraction.

It’s a clear and comprehensive notice, from the Journal of Applied Ecology, despite the bizarre nature of the case: Continue reading “Ephemeral nature” of samples — and co-author — leads to ninth Jesús Lemus retraction

Paper on partially entangled states retracted for partially entangling authors

phys rev aA paper on partially entangled states seems to have fallen victim to a confusing entanglement of authors and studies.

Here’s the notice for the paper, “Optimal quantum communication using multiparticle partially entangled states,” by Atul Kumar, Satyabrata Adhikari, Subhashish Banerjee, and Sovik Roy: Continue reading Paper on partially entangled states retracted for partially entangling authors

A retraction with “serious consequences to wheat production”

pmbrChinese researchers have had a 2012 paper in Plant Molecular Biology Reporter on genetically modified wheat retracted, in a notice that cites fraud.

The article, “Isolation and Functional Characterization of an Antifreeze Protein Gene, TaAFPIII, from Wheat (Triticum aestivum),” came from the same group we wrote about in April 2012 when they retracted a paper from Acta Biochimica et Biophysica Sinica, also about genetically altered wheat.

At the time, the authors said they were pulling the other paper because they were having trouble replicating their findings. That now seems accurate, but not entirely complete.

As the new retraction notice states: Continue reading A retraction with “serious consequences to wheat production”

Not your data: Nursing paper retracted for misuse of findings

nurse education todayWe’re all for research on improving communication and collaboration among colleagues. But we trust that the experts know what they’re doing. You can see where this is going.

The journal Nurse Education Today has retracted a 2012 article, “Interprofessional learning in acute care: Developing a theoretical framework,” by a UK scholar because, how shall we put it, he might need a few lessons in interprofessionalism.

The retraction notice explains it neatly: Continue reading Not your data: Nursing paper retracted for misuse of findings

“Technical but fundamental errors” lead to retraction of brain tumor paper

neuro-oncologyThe journal Neuro-Oncology has retracted a 2011 paper by a group of researchers in Japan who had purported to find a genetic mechanism for how fluorescence can be used to diagnose certain brain tumors.

The paper, “Enhanced expression of coproporphyrinogen oxidase in malignant brain tumors: CPOX expression and 5-ALA–induced fluorescence,” reported measurements using quantitative real-time (qRT)-PCR.

As the retraction notice explains: Continue reading “Technical but fundamental errors” lead to retraction of brain tumor paper

How does a paper get published without the alleged corresponding author knowing?

jmm iopThe Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering ran a retraction yesterday that’s left us scratching our heads.

The paper, “Wettability-gradient-driven micropump for transporting discrete liquid drops,” was published on February 8 of this year.  For a paper published in a journal run by the Institute of Physics, the retraction notice reads like a mix of Hindenburg (read: disaster) and Heisenberg (read: uncertainty): Continue reading How does a paper get published without the alleged corresponding author knowing?

Liver study a twin, gets retracted

B_SPR570_HIJO Journal.inddThe liver is the only internal organ that can regenerate. So perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that Egyptian researchers tried to publish the same paper about liver ischemia twice  in different journals. They succeeded — for a little while, at least.

The Journal of Molecular Histology is retracting the second of the articles to appear. Titled “Effect of preischemic treatment with fenofibrate, a peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-α ligand, on hepatic ischemia–reperfusion injury in rats,” (which is still available online) it was published in 2011 by Vivian Boshra and Amal M. Moustafa of Mansoura University.

Trouble was, in 2011 Moustafa and Boshra, in that order, had also published “Effect of fenofibrate on the experimentally induced hepatic ischemia/reperfusion injury in rats: biochemical, light, and electron microscopic studies” in the Egyptian Journal of Histology (link to pdf).

That, as we know, is not done.

As the retraction notice states: Continue reading Liver study a twin, gets retracted

BioMed Central retracts study it published twice while acquiring journal

jdmdYesterday, we wrote about the retraction of a paper that ended up published despite the fact that peer reviewers had recommended rejecting it. Today, we have the (short) tale of a paper retracted because the publisher posted it a second time while they were buying acquiring the journal where it appeared.

Here’s the notice for “The association between depression, socio-economic factors and dietary intake in mothers having primary school children living in Rey, South of Tehran, Iran,” published in the Journal of Diabetes & Metabolic Diseases: Continue reading BioMed Central retracts study it published twice while acquiring journal