Category: by paywall status

Doing the right thing: Researchers retract two studies when they realize they misinterpreted data

protein scienceWhat do you do when new experiments show that you interpreted the data from your old experiments the wrong way?

Some scientists might just shrug and sweep those errors — and their previous papers — under the rug. But when it happened to Jeffery Kelly, of the Scripps Research Institute, and his colleagues, they decided to retract their earlier work.

Here’s the abstract of their new paper (we bolded a few sentences for emphasis): Continue reading Doing the right thing: Researchers retract two studies when they realize they misinterpreted data

Journal retracts IVF paper over data concerns

jargThe Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics has retracted a 2010 paper by a group of Iranian researchers after concluding that the authors may have misrepresented both the nature of the study and the originality of the work.

The article, “Can fresh embryo transfers be replaced by cryopreserved-thawed embryo transfers in assisted reproductive cycles? A randomized controlled trial,” came from Abbas Aflatoonian, Homa Oskouian, Shahnaz Ahmadi and Leila Oskouian at Yazd Research & Clinical Center for Infertility at Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Science. According to the abstract: Continue reading Journal retracts IVF paper over data concerns

One more paper down for sex researcher Weijmar Schultz

Weijmar Schultz
Weijmar Schultz

The fifth of six expected retractions for copyright infringement has arrived for a group of sex researchers led by Willibrord Weijmar Schultz, this one in the International Journal of Gynecological Cancer of a 1992 article.

As we reported earlier this year, Schultz (whose 1999 paper on sex in an MRI won an Ig Nobel prize) and his colleague,  Mels F. Van Driel, were found not to have committed plagiarism by investigators at the University of Groningen. Instead, they were found guilty of “unintended and unknowing breach of copyright.”

But they were asked to apologize formally to a litany of people — from the editors involved to the sponsors of the research — for what the institution described as “unintended and unknowing breach of copyright” of the work of one Diana Jeffrey, whose 1985 dissertation evidently was very much worth reading.

Here’s the latest retraction notice: Continue reading One more paper down for sex researcher Weijmar Schultz

When 1 equals 2, the result is a retraction

bmcrnA group of psychiatric researchers in Norway has lost their 2013 paper in BMC Research Notes on the effects of antipsychotic medications on the brain after discovering that they’d botched their imaging analyses.

The article, “Does changing from a first generation antipsychotic (perphenazin) to a second generation antipsychotic (risperidone) alter brain activation and motor activity? A case report,” came from a trio of scientists at the University of Bergen and Haukeland University Hospital, also in Bergen. According to the abstract of the paper, which was published last May:

Continue reading When 1 equals 2, the result is a retraction

Author with six recent corrections retracts JBC paper questioned on PubPeer

jbc 8-23-13Rakesh Kumar, a professor at the George Washington University, has retracted a paper in the Journal of Biological Chemistry (JBC) that was recently questioned on PubPeer.

Here are Peer1’s comments from PubPeer about the paper, “Mechanism of MTA1 Protein Overexpression-linked Invasion:” Continue reading Author with six recent corrections retracts JBC paper questioned on PubPeer

A new plagiarism euphemism: “language from already published sources without using proper citation methods”

crestA recent issue of Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology (CREST) adds a new euphemism for plagiarism to our rapidly growing list.

There are two retractions in the issue of the Taylor & Francis journal. One is for “Remediation of Heavy Metal Contaminated Soils: An Overview of Site Remediation Techniques,” by a group from Portugal: Continue reading A new plagiarism euphemism: “language from already published sources without using proper citation methods”

Retraction appears for Harvard scientist who had two mega-corrections last year

molecular cellSam Lee, a Harvard biologist who had two mega-corrections published last year, has retracted a paper in Molecular Cell because some of the figures were “inappropriately assembled.”

Here’s the notice for “GAMT, a p53-Inducible Modulator of Apoptosis, Is Critical for the Adaptive Response to Nutrient Stress:” Continue reading Retraction appears for Harvard scientist who had two mega-corrections last year

Dental journal gives plenty to chew on in retraction of resin paper

jprostoThe Journal of Prosthodontics has retracted a 2006 paper by a pair of Saudi researchers and given them a pass because of an alleged lack of grasp of English — and, we’d add, publishing ethics.

The article, titled “Effect of Chemical Disinfectants and Repair Materials on the Transverse Strength of Repaired Heat-Polymerized Acrylic Resin,” was written by Ayman Ellakwa and Ali El-Sheikh, from institutions in Dammam, Saudi Arabia.

The paper’s abstract stated:  Continue reading Dental journal gives plenty to chew on in retraction of resin paper

Pesticide paper retracted for “major errors”

foods-logoThe authors of a 2013 paper in the journal Foods which sounded alarms about the concentrations of pesticides in vegetables and other commercial crops have pulled the article, citing an insurmountable mistake.  To wit: the levels of pesticides they reported were, in fact, not what the data really showed.

The article, titled “Health risk assessment of pesticide residues via dietary intake of market vegetables from Dhaka, Bangladesh,” came from a group from that country and Australia.  Continue reading Pesticide paper retracted for “major errors”

Paper on “better-than-average effect” retracted for being, well, worse than average

pers soc psych bullPerhaps what Garrison Keillor says about people is also true of scientific papers:

Welcome to Lake Wobegon, where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average.

There’s been another retraction in social psychology, but before you lump it together with the field’s problem children — read: Diederik Stapel — it seems to be an example of researchers coming forward about an honest error.

Here’s the notice for “The Motivated Self: Self-Affirmation and the Better-Than-Average Effect,” originally published last year in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin: Continue reading Paper on “better-than-average effect” retracted for being, well, worse than average