UT-Southwestern cancer research group notches ninth retraction

lung cancerA research team at the University of Texas-Southwestern that has retracted eight papers for image manipulation has retracted another, this one in Lung Cancer.

Here’s the notice for “Aberrant methylation of Reprimo in lung cancer,” published by Adi Gazdar’s group: Continue reading UT-Southwestern cancer research group notches ninth retraction

Bitter rheumatology authorship dispute ends in retraction

rbrA 2012 expression of concern prompted by an authorship dispute has been upgraded to a retraction.

As we reported in 2012, Revista Brasiliera de Reumatologia (aka the Brazilian Journal of Rheumatology) issued an expression of concern about “Anticitrullinated peptide antibodies and rheumatoid factor in Sudanese patients with Leishmania donovani infection” after

a claim from one of the authors, questioning the authorship of the corresponding author, and informed that the article was under submission to another journal.

The journal sought the advice of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and continued its investigation. That investigation is apparently now complete, and this retraction notice is the result: Continue reading Bitter rheumatology authorship dispute ends in retraction

Who moved my ants? Species confusion sinks paper on invasive species

Image via Wikimedia

“How many and which ant species are being accidentally moved around the world?,” published in 2013, has been retracted because the authors “used a wrong list of species and omitted to include a reference.”

The authors claim that this affected the magnitude of the issue, but not the overall conclusion.

The paper was written up by the press several times, including by the BBC, though according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge, it hasn’t been cited.

Here is the notice: Continue reading Who moved my ants? Species confusion sinks paper on invasive species

“Positivity ratio” research now subject to an expression of concern

An expression of concern has been issued for the second of three papers on the idea that, if you have three positive emotions for every negative one, you will be more successful in life.

Psychologist Barbara Fredrickson, of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, has spent the last decade building a brand around this ratio, initially described by a mathematical equation based on fluid dynamics by mathematician Marcial Losada. You can read our coverage of the debunking of that equation, presented in a 1999 paper that has been cited nearly 1,700 times, here.

Nick Brown, co-author with Alan Sokal on the paper that discredited the Losada equation, has written a blog post on the current state of affairs. He also got in touch with us regarding the expression of concern for a 2004 article in American Behavioral Scientist that he had also questioned, “The Role of Positivity and Connectivity in the Performance of Business Teams: A Nonlinear Dynamic Model”: Continue reading “Positivity ratio” research now subject to an expression of concern

Diabetes researcher Cory Toth up to seven retractions

tothA University of Calgary diabetes researcher, Cory Toth, who told us earlier this year that he would cease publishing in the scientific literature, has two more retractions, making seven.

Both appear in Neurobiology of Disease. Here’s the notice for “Differential impact of diabetes and hypertension in the brain: Adverse effects in white matter:”
Continue reading Diabetes researcher Cory Toth up to seven retractions

Paper about widely touted but unapproved “cure” for cancer, autism retracted

int j cancerA paper about a protein being used — unapproved by health agencies — to treat diseases including cancer and autism has been retracted.

Here’s the notice from the International Journal of Cancer about a 2007 paper purporting to show that the substance, GcMAF, is useful against breast cancer: Continue reading Paper about widely touted but unapproved “cure” for cancer, autism retracted

Incorrect analysis leads to Nature’s sixth retraction in 2014

nature 714In what seems to be an example of researchers swiftly and transparently correcting the literature, and acknowledging errors, a pair of scientists have retracted a 2013 paper from Nature.

Here’s the retraction notice for “Genomic organization of human transcription initiation complexes,” by Bryan Venters and Frank Pugh: Continue reading Incorrect analysis leads to Nature’s sixth retraction in 2014

Duplication earns retraction for nanomaterials paper that had already been corrected

Applied_Physics_Letters_cover_imageAfter earning an erratum shortly after publication in 2009, a paper in Applied Physics Letters has now been retracted for the “regrettable mistake” of duplicating an earlier paper by the researchers.

Here’s the notice for “Broadband and omnidirectional antireflection from conductive indium-tin-oxide nanocolumns prepared by glancing-angle deposition with nitrogen:” Continue reading Duplication earns retraction for nanomaterials paper that had already been corrected

Yogurt to be kidding me: Five articles plagiarized in one retracted paper

After typing up 96 citations, researchers from the National Institute for Digestive Diseases, I.R.C.C.S. “S. de Bellis,” in Bari, Italy, apparently ran out of steam for the last five, earning themselves a retraction for plagiarism in a literature review of the effects of probiotics on intestinal cancer.

Here’s the notice for “Intestinal Microbiota, Probiotics and Human Gastrointestinal Cancers,” from the Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer: Continue reading Yogurt to be kidding me: Five articles plagiarized in one retracted paper

Accounting professor faked data for two studies, destroyed evidence: University report

James Hunton, via Bentley University
James Hunton, via Bentley University

The Bentley University accounting professor whose retraction we first reported on in November 2012 fabricated the data behind two papers, a university investigation has concluded.

James E. Hunton, who resigned in December 2012: Continue reading Accounting professor faked data for two studies, destroyed evidence: University report