Category: mary ann liebert

Authors of controversial STAP stem cell study author correct 2011 paper

tissue engineering aThere have been a number of developments in the unraveling of two Nature studies out of the RIKEN Institute in Japan and Harvard purporting to show an easy way to create stem cells. There was an interim report of RIKEN’s investigation last Friday, and more details emerged this week.

And today, the Japan Times reported that last week, a correction of a 2011 paper by many of the same authors appeared in Tissue Engineering Part A. Here’s the correction notice, dated March 13: Continue reading Authors of controversial STAP stem cell study author correct 2011 paper

Failure to launch: “Inaccuracies,” “incomplete and incorrect references” ground space tourist paper

new spaceAn article in New Space, a journal about space travel, has been retracted because the results it presented weren’t ready for liftoff.

The retraction notice appears as a letter from editor G. Scott Hubbard: Continue reading Failure to launch: “Inaccuracies,” “incomplete and incorrect references” ground space tourist paper

Retraction for stem cell scientist facing misconduct inquiry

scadcoverHere’s a retraction from Stem Cells and Development that we’re just now getting around to covering. The paper, “Non-viral reprogramming of skeletal myoblasts with valproic acid for pluripotency,” appeared in June 2012 in a preliminary online form and was written by a group at the University of Cincinnati. As the retraction notice states: Continue reading Retraction for stem cell scientist facing misconduct inquiry

Embryonic stem cell paper retracted for fabrication

scadcoverStem Cells and Development has retracted a paper it published earlier this year after the leader of the study reported that the data were unreliable.

The paper, “Derivation and Genetic Modification of Embryonic Stem Cells from Disease-Model Inbred Rat Strains,” came from the lab of Aron Geurts, of the Medical College of Wisconsin.

According to the retraction notice: Continue reading Embryonic stem cell paper retracted for fabrication

Retraction cites “unintended excessive reuse” in commentary — of paper it was praising

rejuvreschcoverWe here at Retraction Watch HQ are always on the lookout for euphemisms for plagiarism (and other misconduct, of course). Among our favorites are “referencing failure” and the journal that allowed researchers to call plagiarism an “approach” to writing.

Here’s a new one that’s sure to do well with voters.

The journal Rejuvenation Research has retracted a commentary for, well, containing too much of the very text it was supposed to be commenting on.

The editorial was by Giorgio Aicardi, of the University of Bologna, in Italy, and the article Aicardi was writing about was titled “Synaptic distributions of GluA2 and PKMζ in the monkey dentate gyrus and their relationships with aging and memory.” That article had been published in the Journal of Neuroscience last year by a group from Mount Sinai in New York.

We’ll let the notice do the explaining: Continue reading Retraction cites “unintended excessive reuse” in commentary — of paper it was praising

“Way out there” paper claiming to merge physics and biology retracted

dna cell biologyA German professor who claims to have developed “a self-consistent field theory which is used to derive at all known interactions of the potential vortex” will have at least two papers retracted, thanks to the scrutiny of a concerned economist.

The first retraction has already appeared, in DNA and Cell Biology, for a paper by Konstantin Meyl called “DNA and Cell Resonance: Magnetic Waves Enable Cell Communication.” The notice says nothing: Continue reading “Way out there” paper claiming to merge physics and biology retracted

Facebook study retracted after authors request substantial changes

cyberpsychThe journal Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking is retracting a paper about Facebook.

“Bridging the Gap on Facebook: Assessing Intergroup Contact and Its Effects for Intergroup Relations,” is by Sandy Schumann of the Free University of Brussels. The notice says only:

This article has been officially retracted from the Journal.

We asked journal editor Brenda K. Wiederhold for more information about the retraction, and she responded: Continue reading Facebook study retracted after authors request substantial changes

Scientists retract paper because they’re “not satisfied with the quality of some of the data”

antiox and redoxA group of smoking researchers — no, not scientists who are on fire; scientists who study the effects of tobacco smoke — has retracted a 2009 article after deciding that they were no longer “satisfied with the quality of the data.”

The paper, “Cigarette Smoke–induced Oxidative/Nitrosative Stress Impairs VEGF- and Fluid Shear Stress–Mediated Signaling in Endothelial Cells,” came from the lab of Irfan Rahman, a lung disease expert at the University of Rochester. It appeared online in 2009 in Antioxidants & Redox Signaling, which will be familiar to readers watching the case of Dipak Das. 

As the notice explains: Continue reading Scientists retract paper because they’re “not satisfied with the quality of some of the data”

Stem cell retraction leaves grad student in limbo, reveals tangled web of industry-academic ties

stem cells developmentA contested retraction in Stem Cells and Development has left the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) graduate student who fought for it in limbo, uncertain if he will earn his PhD. And many of those who didn’t want the paper retracted have a significant financial interest in a company whose work was promoted by the research — despite any lack of disclosure in the now-retracted paper.

Here’s the notice: Continue reading Stem cell retraction leaves grad student in limbo, reveals tangled web of industry-academic ties

Correction for MD Anderson’s Bharat Aggarwal arches eyebrows for the right reasons

We’ve written about mega-corrections that allow scientists to retrace virtually all of their steps yet preserve their publications as supposedly legitimate. And we’ve seen plenty of corrections that allow authors to assert that their conclusions are correct when evidently important pieces of data are themselves unreliable.

Now comes a correction that seems to us to strike the right chords, given the fact that editors are to a large extent at the mercy of authors in these situations. Continue reading Correction for MD Anderson’s Bharat Aggarwal arches eyebrows for the right reasons