Amid criticisms this week that his former university didn’t do all it should have to investigate his work, another paper by Dirk Smeesters has been retracted.
Here’s the notice for “The effect of color (red versus blue) on assimilation versus contrast in prime-to-behavior effects,” which appeared in The Journal of Experimental Social Psychology: Continue reading Retraction three for Dirk Smeesters
The Journal of Vascular Surgery is retracting — with vigor — a paper it published online in March after discovering that the authors had published essentially the same article for the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology some months earlier.
Both papers are titled “Randomized controlled trial comparing treatment outcome of two compression bandaging systems and standard care without compression in patients with venous leg ulcers.” The work was funded by the Health, Welfare and Food Bureau of Hong Kong and a grant from Lohmann & Rauscher GmbH & Co KG, a German company that makes compression bandages and other surgical supplies.
According to the retraction notice in JVS: Continue reading Double bind: Duplication of bandaging paper leads to retraction
Today, on Thanksgiving in the U.S., Retraction Watch is taking a bit of a holiday as we dig into some turkey — not to be confused with retractions from Turkey. We’d like to give thanks for the thousands of Retraction Watch readers all over the world who’ve helped us shine a spotlight on the scientific process, warts and all.
And we imagine that journal editors around the globe are giving thanks to plagiarism detection software such as iThenticate, so today’s post is a roundup of some recent retractions for plagiarism: Continue reading Giving thanks for plagiarism detection software: Catching up on retractions for the sincerest form of flattery
The list of Ulrich Lichtenthaler retractions has grown to eight.
Here’s the new notice, for “Externally commercializing technology assets: An examination of different process stages,” from the Journal of Business Venturing: Continue reading What’s new is not new again: Ulrich Lichtenthaler retracts eighth paper
The work of Sam W. Lee, a cancer biologist at Harvard and Massachusetts General Hospital, has come under fire at Science Fraud lately over concerns about the possible reuse of images in his group’s published studies.
Turns out there’s some there, there after all. The journal Current Biology has issued a pretty thorny correction for one of Lee’s 2006 articles, “RhoE Is a Pro-Survival p53 Target Gene that Inhibits ROCK I-Mediated Apoptosis in Response to Genotoxic Stress,” citing multiple issues with its figures: Continue reading Image correction in Current Biology for Harvard’s Sam Lee
Forgive us if we’re a tad skeptical here, but we’re not convinced about the, um, sincerity of the following retraction notice.
The International Journal of Biological Macromolecules has retracted a paper it published earlier this year by a group of Canadian researchers who had already published the same paper in a different journal.
The article, “Spectroscopic investigation of collagen scaffolds impregnated with AgNPs coated by PEG/TX-100 mixed systems,” came from researchers at the University of Saskatchewan and appeared in the April issue of the IJBM.
But according to the notice: Continue reading “Administrative error” leads to duplication retraction
Canada’s University of Waterloo is racking up the retractions, with one in July for plagiarism, another earlier this month for faked data from a graduate student who had her master’s degree revoked, and now a third for duplication.
Here’s the notice, for “The influence of friends, family, and older peers on smoking among elementary school students: Low-risk students in high-risk schools,” which appeared in Preventive Medicine in March 2006: Continue reading Another retraction from University of Waterloo, this time for duplication
A group of Chinese authors studying the Shang Ring, “a device that allows professionals to perform hundreds rather than tens of” circumcisions in a day, as had to retract the paper after editors apparently figured out they had changed some dates in the paper so it wouldn’t look as though they were trying to publish it twice. Or maybe they just changed the dates for some other reason, while publishing it twice anyway — it’s not clear.
Here’s the Journal of Urology notice for “A Randomized Clinical Study of Circumcision with a Ring Device Versus Conventional Circumcision,” by Cheng Yuea and colleagues from the Medical College of Ningbo University, the Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, and Taizhou First People’s Hospital: Continue reading Paper cuts? Duplication, data manipulation force retraction of study of circumcision by ring device
In circumstances we haven’t quite sorted out, an Australian climate researcher has retracted a paper because he didn’t have the right to use data from a now-shuttered government program.
Ravinesh Deo, of the University of Southern Queensland, published “A review and modelling results of the simulated response of deforestation on climate extremes in eastern Australia” in Atmospheric Researchin May of this year.
Last week, this retraction notice appeared: Continue reading Australian government-funded study of deforestation, climate retracted for intellectual property conflicts
On May 11 of this year, Juan Antonio Baeza, an environmental engineering researcher at Universitat Autonoma Barcelona was looking for papers in Water Research about knowledge-based systems, the subject of his 1999 PhD thesis. As he tells Retraction Watch, when he came across “Improving the efficiencies of simultaneous organic substance and nitrogen removal in a multi-stage loop membrane bioreactor-based PWWTP using an on-line Knowledge-Based Expert System”:
I started to read this paper and some sentences of the abstract were interesting, well, really I thought that I would have written that with the same words! But after reading some parts of the paper I realized that those were really my words of a previous paper published in the same journal in 2002.
I started to compare it and around 40-50% of the paper was a direct copy of my paper without changing even a comma.
So he wrote to the journal on May 14: Continue reading How does it feel to have your scientific paper plagiarized? Part 2