Category: freely available

Anesthesia journal editor says “if you blow us off, it will be retracted,” and sticks to his word

The Journal of Clinical Anesthesia has retracted a paper by a group of Israeli authors whose study may not have had appropriate ethical approval — or even collected the reported data.

The article, “Accidental venous and dural puncture during epidural analgesia in obese parturients (BMI > 40 kg/m2): three different body positions during insertion,” was published in 2010 by a team from Assaf Harofeh Medical Center, in Zerifin, one of the country’s largest hospitals and an affiliate of Tel Aviv University. Dural puncture is an infrequent but potentially serious complication of labor anesthesia, causing severe headaches and, in rare cases, death if untreated.

According to the retraction notice: Continue reading Anesthesia journal editor says “if you blow us off, it will be retracted,” and sticks to his word

Anil Potti and colleagues retract ninth paper, this one in JCO

Former Duke oncology researcher Anil Potti has retracted another paper, marking his ninth withdrawal. The notice in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO) reads:

“An Integrated Genomic-Based Approach to Individualized Treatment of Patients With Advanced-Stage Ovarian Cancer” by Holly K. Dressman, Andrew Berchuck, Gina Chan, Jun Zhai, Andrea Bild, Robyn Sayer, Janiel Cragun, Jennifer Clarke, Regina S. Whitaker, LiHua Li, Jonathan Gray, Jeffrey Marks, Geoffrey S. Ginsburg, Anil Potti, Mike West, Joseph R. Nevins, and Johnathan M. Lancaster (J Clin Oncol 25:517-525, 2007)

The majority of the authors wish to retract this article because Continue reading Anil Potti and colleagues retract ninth paper, this one in JCO

Plagiarism burns authors of fire safety paper

Safety science might not be the most crowded field, nor its eponymous journal the title on every marquee, but here’s a general rule for would-be plagiarists even in relatively obscure publications: Avoid lifting text from government reports and other publicly available references. (Well, don’t plagiarize at all, but you know what we mean.)

Consider: The journal Safety Science is retracting a 2011 paper whose authors evidently failed to adhere to that principle. Here’s the notice for the article, “Agent-based simulation of fire emergency evacuation with fire and human interaction model,” by Yang Peizhong, Wang Xin and Liu Tao, of Shanghai Jiaotong University: Continue reading Plagiarism burns authors of fire safety paper

Second retraction for former SUNY Upstate department chair found guilty of misconduct

Last week, we covered the case of Michael W. Miller, a former department chair at the State University of New York (SUNY) Upstate who was forced to retract a paper in the Journal of Neurochemistry after a university investigation found he had committed misconduct.

We figured more retractions might be on the way, so we weren’t surprised when a commenter informed us earlier today of “very interesting and odd retraction letter.” Miller has had at least one other retraction, it turns out, this one in Developmental Neuroscience for 2009’s “Lability of Neuronal Lineage Decisions Is Revealed by Acute Exposures to Ethanol.” Here’s the notice, published online on January 19: Continue reading Second retraction for former SUNY Upstate department chair found guilty of misconduct

PNAS retraction marks second for crystallography group

Two crystallographers who retracted a Structure paper last year have retracted a study about a similar subject in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, for similar reasons.

Here’s the notice for the paper, which has been cited 23 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge: Continue reading PNAS retraction marks second for crystallography group

Should Iran have nuclear power? Paper addressing question retracted for authorship issues

When Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews accepted a paper last year arguing that nuclear power is Iran’s “assured right,” the editor, Lawrence Kazmirski, thought the article would be at least somewhat controversial. He was right — but for the wrong reason.

Shortly after publication, Kazmirski,  director of the National Center for Photovoltaics at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, in Golden, Colo., received an email from one of the listed co-authors of the article complaining that he and another co-author had not consented to submit the work. Kazmirski contacted the lead author, Afshin Mazandarani, who agreed to withdraw the paper.

The result was the following notice, which appeared in October (we only recently saw it): Continue reading Should Iran have nuclear power? Paper addressing question retracted for authorship issues

Mysterious retraction in the Journal of Biological Chemistry for Takashi Tsuji’s group

The authors of a paper in the Journal of Biological Chemistry (JBC) have retracted it, but don’t ask us why.

This being the JBC, the retraction notice for “Human T-cell Leukemia Virus Type I Tax Down-regulates the Expression of Phosphatidylinositol 3,4,5-Trisphosphate Inositol Phosphatases via the NF-κB Pathway” is the very definition of opaque: Continue reading Mysterious retraction in the Journal of Biological Chemistry for Takashi Tsuji’s group

Seeing double: Current Eye Research retracts three papers for duplication

Three papers in Current Eye Research have apparently not quite lived up to the journal’s name. The journal in November retracted three studies from a group of authors in China who had previously published the papers in their native language.

Here’s the notice, which also appears in this month’s print edition: Continue reading Seeing double: Current Eye Research retracts three papers for duplication

Your experiment didn’t work out? The Journal of Errology wants to hear from you

It’s no secret that it can be difficult to find negative results in the scientific literature. For a variety of reasons, positive publication bias is a real phenomenon. In clinical medicine, that can paint a more optimistic picture of a field than is actually the case. And in basic science, it can mean other scientists may repeat experiments that have already failed.

But the new Journal of Errology, yet to be launched, wants to be a home for experiments that didn’t work out. If it’s successful, it might mean a place where researchers could publish results that don’t look great, without feeling the need to make them look any better — a strategy that can lead to retractions.

BioFlukes, the journal’s Bangalore, India-based publishers, have ambitious goals, according to the company’s Mahboob Imtiyaz: Continue reading Your experiment didn’t work out? The Journal of Errology wants to hear from you

Another paper rejected, mistakenly published, then retracted, this one in nanotechnology journal

Last week, we brought you the tale of a paper about camels that was rejected on submission, but published accidentally, and then retracted. It turns out this was not a unique occurrence.

An eagle-eyed Retraction Watch reader emailed us about another such paper, this one in the Journal of Nanoparticle Research. The study, “Growth of gold flowers on polyacrylonitrile fibers,” appears to have been published online on December 3, 2008. It now sports this retraction notice: Continue reading Another paper rejected, mistakenly published, then retracted, this one in nanotechnology journal