Category: by paywall status

“Lack of experience and understanding” forces duplication retractions of liver cancer paper

dovelogoA group of researchers in China has lost their paper on liver cancer after the first author admitted to duplication, also known, inelegantly, as self-plagiarism.

The paper, “Glycyrrhetinic acid-modified chitosan nanoparticles enhanced the effect of 5-fluorouracil in murine liver cancer model via regulatory T-cells,” appeared in the July 2013 issue of the Journal of Drug Design, Development and Therapy, a Dove Press title.

According to the abstract: Continue reading “Lack of experience and understanding” forces duplication retractions of liver cancer paper

Incorrect analysis leads to Nature’s sixth retraction in 2014

nature 714In what seems to be an example of researchers swiftly and transparently correcting the literature, and acknowledging errors, a pair of scientists have retracted a 2013 paper from Nature.

Here’s the retraction notice for “Genomic organization of human transcription initiation complexes,” by Bryan Venters and Frank Pugh: Continue reading Incorrect analysis leads to Nature’s sixth retraction in 2014

Patient mix-up sinks prenatal supplement paper

This one seems like an honest mistake: a paper on dietary supplements during pregnancy has been retracted based on an error in data recording.

In the BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth paper, “Folic acid supplementation, dietary folate intake during pregnancy and risk for spontaneous preterm delivery: a prospective observational cohort study,” women for whom the researchers had no data on folic acid supplementation were classified as taking no supplements. Despite the error, the authors claim the overall conclusion remains the same: taking folic acid supplements didn’t protect women from preterm deliveries.

Here’s the retraction notice: Continue reading Patient mix-up sinks prenatal supplement paper

Duplication earns retraction for nanomaterials paper that had already been corrected

Applied_Physics_Letters_cover_imageAfter earning an erratum shortly after publication in 2009, a paper in Applied Physics Letters has now been retracted for the “regrettable mistake” of duplicating an earlier paper by the researchers.

Here’s the notice for “Broadband and omnidirectional antireflection from conductive indium-tin-oxide nanocolumns prepared by glancing-angle deposition with nitrogen:” Continue reading Duplication earns retraction for nanomaterials paper that had already been corrected

Yogurt to be kidding me: Five articles plagiarized in one retracted paper

After typing up 96 citations, researchers from the National Institute for Digestive Diseases, I.R.C.C.S. “S. de Bellis,” in Bari, Italy, apparently ran out of steam for the last five, earning themselves a retraction for plagiarism in a literature review of the effects of probiotics on intestinal cancer.

Here’s the notice for “Intestinal Microbiota, Probiotics and Human Gastrointestinal Cancers,” from the Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer: Continue reading Yogurt to be kidding me: Five articles plagiarized in one retracted paper

Editorial mix-up leads to duplication, retraction of physics paper

A missed withdrawal request has led to doubled up publication and a later retraction for Brazilian physicists, through no fault of their own.

“Atmospheric Plasma Treatment of Carbon Fibers for Enhancement of Their Adhesion Properties” was presented at an Institute of Physics (IOP) conference in 2010. The proceedings weren’t published until May 2014.

In the meantime, the plasma scientists withdrew their paper from consideration and submitted it to IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, where it was published in February 2013. Unfortunately, in the four year delay between the conference and the Institute of Physics publication, the withdrawal request got lost.

Here’s the notice: Continue reading Editorial mix-up leads to duplication, retraction of physics paper

Boeing engineer has two papers retracted for duplication

j sound vibrationThe editor of the Journal of Sound and Vibration has retracted two papers by a Boeing engineer because the author reused his previous work.

Here’s the notice for “A component-based model for aircraft landing gear noise prediction,” by Yueping Guo: Continue reading Boeing engineer has two papers retracted for duplication

The camel doesn’t have two humps: Programming “aptitude test” canned for overzealous conclusion

Photo via Benutzerin:BS Thurner Hof

From Larry Summers to James Watson, certain scientists have a long and questionable tradition of using “data” to make claims about intelligence and aptitude.

So it’s no surprise that, when well-known computer scientist Richard Bornat claimed his PhD student had created a test to separate people who would succeed at programming versus those who didn’t, people happily embraced it. After all, it’s much easier to say there’s a large population that will just never get it, instead of re-examining your teaching methods.

The paper, called “The camel has two humps,” suggested instead of a bell curve, programming success rates look more like a two-humped ungulate: the kids who get it, and the kids who never will.

Though the paper was never formally published, it made the rounds pretty extensively. Now, Bornat has published a retraction, stating that he wrote the article during an antidepressant-driven mania that also earned him a suspension from his university. Here’s the meat of the notice: Continue reading The camel doesn’t have two humps: Programming “aptitude test” canned for overzealous conclusion

Authors issue their own expression of concern about elephant femur paper

interfaceThe authors of a 2012 paper in the journal Interface have had the journal issue an expression of concern about it after issues with “some of the data and methods” came to light.

Here’s the expression of concern for “What makes an accurate and reliable subject-specific finite element model? A case study of an elephant femur:” Continue reading Authors issue their own expression of concern about elephant femur paper

PLOS ONE retracts breast cancer genetics paper after claim of misappropriated data

plosonePLOS ONE has retracted a 2012 article by a group of breast cancer researchers after another scientist — a leading U.S. oncologist — objected that the data came from his lab.

The paper, “GREB1 Functions as a Growth Promoter and Is Modulated by IL6/STAT3 in Breast Cancer,” came from a team composed of researchers at the Morehouse School of Medicine, Xavier University of Louisiana and the University of Miami School of Medicine. It purported to find that: Continue reading PLOS ONE retracts breast cancer genetics paper after claim of misappropriated data