Category: by paywall status

Fredrickson-Losada “positivity ratio” paper partially withdrawn

am psychIn 2005, Barbara Fredrickson and Marcial Losada published a paper in American Psychologist making a bold and specific claim:

…the authors predict that a ratio of positive to negative affect at or above 2.9 will characterize individuals in flourishing mental health.

The paper made quite a splash. It has been cited 360 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge, and formed the basis of a 2009 book by Fredrickson, Positivity: Top-Notch Research Reveals the 3 to 1 Ratio That Will Change Your Life.

But something didn’t sit right with Nick Brown, a psychology grad student at the University of East London. He found the paper’s claims wanting, and contacted Alan Sokal — yes, that Alan Sokal, who published a fake paper in Social Text in 1996. Sokal agreed, and he, Brown, and Harris Friedman published a critique of the paper in July of this year in American Psychologist. Its abstract: Continue reading Fredrickson-Losada “positivity ratio” paper partially withdrawn

That’ll do it: Physics paper retracted for a “pattern that is unphysical”

j phys dLast December, we brought you the story of a math paper that was retracted because it made “no sense mathematically.” Today, we have that retraction’s cousin: A physics paper retracted because some of the data are “unphysical.”

Here’s the notice for “Room temperature ferromagnetism in pure and Co- and Fe-doped CeO2 dilute magnetic oxide: effect of oxygen vacancies and cation valence,” which was published in April 2011 in the Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics: Continue reading That’ll do it: Physics paper retracted for a “pattern that is unphysical”

Your bad: Journal yanks paper for plagiarism and duplication, and points fingers

molecules-logoHere’s a warning to would-be plagiarizers: Don’t submit to the journal Molecules unless you have no problem being called out by name when you’re busted.

Consider: The journal is retracting a paper it published earlier this year after learning that the article contained verbatim text — and lots of it — from previously published papers.

The article, “Cytotoxicity and Anti-Inflammatory Activity of ethylsulfanyltriazoloquinazolin,” was written by a group that included Amira M. Gamal-Eldeen, of the National Research Center in Cairo, Egypt. Why single out Dr. Gamal-Eldeen, you ask? Read for yourself: Continue reading Your bad: Journal yanks paper for plagiarism and duplication, and points fingers

Thou shalt not plagiarize: Eighth commandment violation results in retraction

htscoverThe author of a scholarly work on Christian theology — in particular, that dealing with what the Bible has to say about the relationship of Christians with Jews and other non-believers in Christ — has lost the article for violating the Eighth Commandment. (Or Seventh, depending which version of said commandments you read.)

The paper, “Social identity, ethnicity and the gospel of reconciliation,” was written by Jason Goroncy, of the Knox Centre for Ministry and Leadership, in Dunedin, New Zealand, and the Department of Practical Theology at the University of Pretoria, in South Africa. It appeared in the journal Theological Studies (also known as HTS Teologiese Studies).

The abstract states:

Continue reading Thou shalt not plagiarize: Eighth commandment violation results in retraction

It’s an epidemic! Another group does the right thing, retracting neuroscience paper

jneurosciAs the bumper sticker says, “Regime change starts at home.” Seems to be the case with scientists these days.

This month we have seen commendable instances of researchers retracting papers after identifying flaws in their own data — an outbreak of integrity that has us here at Retraction Watch applauding. (We’ve even created a new category, “doing the right thing,” at the suggestion of a reader.)

Today’s feel-good story comes from the lab of Karl Svoboda, of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Janelia Farm Research Campus, in Ashburn, Va. Back in June, Svoboda and his colleagues published “Whisker Dynamics Underlying Tactile Exploration,” in the Journal of Neuroscience. Here’s what the abstract had to say about the study:

Continue reading It’s an epidemic! Another group does the right thing, retracting neuroscience paper

Retraction for iffy data as authors of chicken enzyme paper lay an egg

IntjrnbiolmacroThe authors of an article in the International Journal of Biological Macromolecules have pulled the paper in what appears to be an authorship dispute sparked by premature submission.

The paper, “Renaturation and one step purification of the chicken GIIA secreted phospholipase A2 from inclusion bodies,” came from a group of researchers in Tunisia and Marseille, France, and was published online last May. It has yet to be cited, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge. As the abstract states:

Continue reading Retraction for iffy data as authors of chicken enzyme paper lay an egg

A Cancer Cell mega-correction for highly cited researcher who retracted paper earlier this year

cancer cell 9-13MIT’s Robert Weinberg, a leading cancer researcher who retracted a Cancer Cell paper earlier this year for “inappropriate presentation” of figures, has corrected a different paper in the same journal.

Here’s the correction for “Species- and Cell Type-Specific Requirements for Cellular Transformation:”

We were apprised recently of errors made in the assembly of Figures 2B, 3A, 4A, 4B, and 5G, resulting in the incorporation of incorrect representative images in these figures. These errors occurred during the electronic assembly and have no bearing on the conclusions of the study. The corrected figures are shown below. The authors apologize for any possible confusion this might have caused.

Here’s the original Figure 2 and caption, followed by the new version (read all the way to the end of the post for more details on how this came to light): Continue reading A Cancer Cell mega-correction for highly cited researcher who retracted paper earlier this year

Doing the right thing: Researchers retract quorum sensing paper after public process

Pamela Ronald, via UC Davis
Pamela Ronald, via UC Davis

We’ll say it again: We like being able to point out when researchers stand up and do the right thing, even at personal cost.

In December 2011, Pamela C. Ronald, of the University of California, Davis, and colleagues published a paper in PLOS ONE,”Small Protein-Mediated Quorum Sensing in a Gram-Negative Bacterium.” Such quorum sensing research is a “hot topic” right now, so not surprisingly the paper caught the attention of other scientists, and the media, including the Western Farm Press. The study has been cited eight times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

One of those scientists who took notice was Ronald’s UC Davis colleague Jonathan Eisen, who posted about the paper on his blog. That was on January 9, 2012. But if you go to that post today, you’ll see that Eisen struck through most of it, and added this comment: Continue reading Doing the right thing: Researchers retract quorum sensing paper after public process

Image highjinx lead to retraction of hot pepper paper

pcp 913coverYou might be forgiven for thinking that the editors were describing a bad relationship rather than a paper gone wrong, the journal of Plant and Cell Physiology is retracting a 2004 article by Korean researchers who “manipulated and repeatedly used” micrographs.

The article, “Ornithine Decarboxylase Gene (CaODC1) is Specifically Induced during TMV-mediated but Salicylate-independent Resistant Response in Hot Pepper,” which appeared a s a short communication in the journal, came from the lab of Kyung-Hee Paek at Korea University.

According to the retraction notice: Continue reading Image highjinx lead to retraction of hot pepper paper

Real problems with retracted shame and money paper revealed

sjdmLast month, we reported on a retraction in Judgment and Decision Making that said “problems were discovered with the data.” At the time, corresponding author Wen-Bin Chiou, of National Sun Yat-sen University in Taiwan, told us that a research assistant who had since left the lab hadn’t kept questionnaires used in the research, making replication impossible.

But it turns out that wasn’t the whole story of “Shame for money: Shame enhances the incentive value of economic resources,” to put it charitably. We’ve now heard from people familiar with the case and can provide a fuller account.

The problems with the paper, according to our source, Continue reading Real problems with retracted shame and money paper revealed