Category: mary ann liebert

A pharmacology researcher at the University of Pennsylvania is up to four retractions for problems with the data in his articles after a neurology journal pulled three papers late last month. 

According to the Journal of Neurotrauma, a Mary Ann Liebert title, William Armstead – who holds a research professorship in Anesthesiology and Critical Care at Penn [please see an update on this post] – requested the retraction of three articles while informing that, in his words:

substantive questions have arisen regarding the findings, presentation and conclusions reported in the paper that could not be answered with available source data.

But beyond that, Armstead – who has not responded to a request for comment from Retraction Watch – left things a bit of a mystery. 

Continue reading UPenn prof retracts three papers for ‘substantive questions’

If the writers of “Welcome Back, Kotter” wanted to issue a retraction statement, it might look something like this one from Mary Ann Liebert. We’ll call this one a hat tip to Juan Luis Pedro Felipo de Huevos Epstein, a Sweathog whose permission slips “from his mother” became a meme.

The paper in question appeared in 2016 in Cancer Biotherapy and Radiopharmaceuticals and written by a group in China led by Liqun Yang, of the Third Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical Center and the State Key Laboratory of Silkworm Genome Biology at Southwest University in Chongqing.   

In November 2021, Yang emailed the journal asking to swap out the original figure in the article with a corrected version. What Yang didn’t know was that a week earlier, the journal had received word of a post on PubPeer raising questions about the figures in the paper. 

The post received the following response from someone writing as co-author Hongjuan Cui: 

Continue reading Researchers in China send a hospital “declaration” clearing them of fraud. A journal doesn’t buy it.

“The retraction that took years” is a common enough refrain on Retraction Watch that it might as be its own genre. Here’s one that didn’t.

A journal wasted no time pouncing on a suspect paper, retracting the 2016 article just three days after a commenter flagged concerns about the images in the work on PubPeer. 

As the commenter, Actinopolyspora biskrensis, wrote: 

Continue reading Often, retractions take years. This one took three days.

In 2016 Genetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers published a paper on osteoarthritis by a group at Linyi People’s Hospital in China. Five years later, the authors contacted the journal asking for the correction of a pair of figures — but, as the publisher, Mary Ann Liebert, explained, the new files were “not workable.” 

In May 2021, the journal issued an expression of concern for the paper (which, we’ll note, unfortunately sits behind a paywall). And earlier this month, it was retracted. For the rest of the story, read the retraction notice (caution, the following text might contain trigger words for unethical researchers): 

Continue reading When authors stop responding to requests for data, a journal retracts

Last April, the The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine provisionally accepted  a paper on the role of music therapy in palliative care settings. Unfortunately for authors, the article did not grab the guest editors of the supplementary issue to which it had been designated.

So far, so good. But a production error caused the paper to appear online — necessitating a retraction when the journal learned that the authors, understandably, had already found another home for their work. 

According to the notice: 

Continue reading Publisher does a “thorough sweep” of alternative medicine journal after a paper is published in error

Although it’s never too late to say sorry, sometimes the apology turns out to be worse than keeping quiet. 

Consider the case of a group in China, who admitted that their 2020 paper on brain tumors was the work of a paper mill. 

The article, “LncRNA SNHG16 Promotes Proliferation, Migration, and Invasion of Glioma Cells Through Regulating the miR-490/PCBP2 Axis,” came from a group led by Fangen Kong, of the Department of Neurosurgery at The Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, in Zhuhai.

Missing from the list of authors, however, was another…well, something, as the retraction notice points out:

Continue reading Here’s what happened when a publisher looked more closely at a paper milled paper

Carol Shoshkes Reiss describes it as “especially striking.”

I have been Editor-in-Chief of DNA and Cell Biology for the last decade.  It has been rare for authors to request withdrawal of a paper they have submitted.  However, in the last two weeks, six papers have been withdrawn on request.

What really puzzled Reiss, a professor emerita at New York University, was that two of the withdrawals used identical language — down to the incorrect punctuation and stilted phrasing:

Continue reading ‘Striking’: Journal editor suspects paper mills behind rash of withdrawn manuscripts

A researcher who has had more than 40 papers questioned by scientific sleuths has lost a second to retraction.

On December 14, Elisabeth Bik reported problems in 39 papers coauthored by Hua Tang, of Tianjin Medical University in China, to the editors of the journals that had published the papers. PubPeer commenters found problems in several other papers, and Bik tallied the 45 articles in a December 18 post.

In May, Tang lost a paper from PLOS ONE that Bik had flagged for the journal all the way back in 2015 — a delay that is not unusual for the journal, but becoming less common.

But the response this time was swift, at least for one journal. DNA and Cell Biology, a Mary Ann Liebert title, retracted “microRNA-34a-Upregulated Retinoic Acid-Inducible Gene-I Promotes Apoptosis and Delays Cell Cycle Transition in Cervical Cancer Cells” this week. (The exact date of the retraction is unclear, as Bik notes below.)

Here’s the notice:

Continue reading “This retraction is one of the fastest I ever experienced after reporting a paper to a journal editor.”

Pro tip to would-be fraudsters: If you’re going to submit new figures to support your claims, make sure they’re not obviously fake. 

That’s a lesson a group of cancer researchers learned the hard way for their 2016 article in DNA and Cell Biology titled “miR-106a-5p suppresses the proliferation, migration, and invasion of osteosarcoma cells by targeting HMGA2.” The corresponding author was Fang Ji, of The Second Military Medical University in Shanghai. 

The paper appeared on PubPeer earlier this year, where a commentor noted dryly: 

Continue reading Researchers tried to correct a figure after questions on PubPeer. Then the real trouble started.

In the market for an admirably clear and concise retraction notice? Look no further! 

A researcher in China has lost one — well, maybe two, more on that in a moment — 2015 articles for falsification of data and other misconduct. And one of the journals he tried to dupe is having none of it. 

The papers appeared in Tissue Engineering, which is published by Mary Ann Liebert. A related, but yet unretracted, article was in the Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine, a Springer title. The focus of the case is Xing Wei, of the, National Engineering Research Center of Genetic Medicine at Jinan University, in Guangzhou. 

Here’s the retraction notice: 

Continue reading A tale of one exceedingly clear retraction notice, and two nonexistent ones