Category: elsevier

If it smells like pig sh@#, it probably is pig sh@#: A stinky retraction

biores techA group of authors in China has lost their 2011 paper in Bioresource Technology on pig poop because the journal detected a whiff of the familiar in a previously published article by other researchers in the same journal (a major tsk tsk and, well, oops).

The article, “Feasibility of biogas production from anaerobic co-digestion of herbal-extraction residues with swine manure,” came from a team at Nanchang University. Except, well, not really, as we’ll see. According to its abstract:
Continue reading If it smells like pig sh@#, it probably is pig sh@#: A stinky retraction

Ulrich Lichtenthaler retraction count rises to 16

Ulrich Lichtenthaler
Ulrich Lichtenthaler

The pixels were barely dry on our post reporting the 14th and 15th retractions for management professor Ulrich Lichtenthaler Friday by the time his 16th retraction appeared.

Here’s the notice for “The role of deliberate and experiential learning in developing capabilities: Insights from technology licensing,” a paper originally published in 2012 in the Journal of Engineering and Technology Management: Continue reading Ulrich Lichtenthaler retraction count rises to 16

Authors retract Current Biology study following criticism on PubPeer and university investigation

current biologyThe authors of a Current Biology paper published online in February of this year have retracted it after voluminous criticism on post-publication review site PubPeer and a university committee found evidence of figure manipulation.

The paper, “Agonist-Induced GPCR Shedding from the Ciliary Surface Is Dependent on ESCRT-III and VPS4,” was co-authored by Hua Jin and Livana Soetedjo, a graduate student in Jin’s lab. Soetedjo was first author, and Jin was corresponding author.

The comments at PubPeer began on March 24: Continue reading Authors retract Current Biology study following criticism on PubPeer and university investigation

“Apparently, the bureaucracy at Elsevier is the most cumbersome thing in the world:” Journal editor

bbrcWe recently came across a paper in Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, an Elsevier title, that had been temporarily removed without explanation. While we see a fair number of such opaque notices from Elsevier — and have written about why we think they’re a bad idea — we took interest in this one because the last author, Toren Finkel of the NIH, was the corresponding author of a Nature paper retracted earlier this year. (He also had two corrections on one Science paper, both of which are paywalled.)

What we learned suggests the withdrawal was completely unrelated to the Nature retraction, but also reveals a journal editor’s exasperation.

Continue reading “Apparently, the bureaucracy at Elsevier is the most cumbersome thing in the world:” Journal editor

Update: Lab head shares “painful” process that led to Molecular Cell retraction

molecular cell 14Last month, we published a guest post by Jean Hazel Mendoza about the retraction of a Molecular Cell paper for sampling errors, flawed analysis, and and miscalculation.

Mendoza heard back from Jean-François Allemand, the head of one of the labs involved. Allemand tells Retraction Watch by email that when his group tried to repeat the experiment, they suspected of “missing” or “averaging” of data points in the retracted paper: Continue reading Update: Lab head shares “painful” process that led to Molecular Cell retraction

UT-Southwestern cancer researchers up to 8 retractions

oncogeneA group at the University of Texas Southwestern led by Adi F. Gazdar that found evidence of inappropriate image manipulation in a number of their papers has retracted its seventh and eighth studies.

Here’s the notice for 2005’s “Aberrant methylation profile of human malignant mesotheliomas and its relationship to SV40 infection,” in Oncogene: Continue reading UT-Southwestern cancer researchers up to 8 retractions

Former University of Utah researchers, one guilty of “reckless disregard,” have another paper retracted

cell metabolismA pair of University of Utah researchers who both left their posts last year following an investigation into problems with their work have had another paper retracted from Cell Metabolism.

The investigation found “reckless disregard” in papers in which Ivana De Domenico was first author. She left the university at the end of June 2013, and and her lab head, Jerry Kaplan, retired at the same time.

Here’s the notice for 2008’s “The Hepcidin-Binding Site on Ferroportin Is Evolutionarily Conserved:” Continue reading Former University of Utah researchers, one guilty of “reckless disregard,” have another paper retracted

Researchers repeat retracted study, republish in same journal sans first author

biol psychWe’ve been following the case of Amine Bahi, a neuroscience researcher in the United Arab Emirates who has managed something unusual in the annals of Retraction Watch: Three different retractions for three completely different reasons. One was for “legal issues,” another was for lack of IRB approval, and the third was for using RNAs from the wrong species.

Now, Bahi’s co-authors have repeated the last of those studies with the right RNAs, and have republished their paper in the same journal, Biological Psychiatry — but without Bahi.

The retraction notice for “Blockade of Protein Phosphatase 2B Activity in the Amygdala Increases Anxiety- and Depression-Like Behaviors in Mice” now includes this final paragraph: Continue reading Researchers repeat retracted study, republish in same journal sans first author

Oncology researcher Getzenberg notches seventh retraction

GetzenbergRobert Getzenberg, a former Hopkins and Pitt cancer researcher, has retracted another paper, his seventh.

Here’s the notice for “Highly specific urine-based marker of bladder cancer,” a paper first published in Urology in 2005: Continue reading Oncology researcher Getzenberg notches seventh retraction

Forged authorship sinks melanoma paper

ijbcbThe International Journal of Biochemistry & Cell Biology has retracted a 2013 paper by a group from China after learning that only the first author knew about the article.

The paper was titled “Construction of circular miRNA sponges targeting miR-21 or miR-221 and demonstration of their excellent anticancer effects on malignant melanoma cells,” and it was led by Yuchen Liu. Liu’s affiliations include the Institute of Dermatology and Department of Dermatology at No. 1 Hospital, part of Anhui Medical University, and the State Key Laboratory Incubation Base of Dermatology for the Ministry of National Science and Technology.

Here’s the retraction notice:
Continue reading Forged authorship sinks melanoma paper