Category: by publisher

Republished Seralini GMO-rat study was not peer-reviewed, says editor

env sci europeIn our coverage Tuesday of the republication of the controversial retracted study of GMOs and rats by Gilles Seralini and colleagues, we wrote this about a strange passage in an editor’s note on the paper:

The republished study was peer-reviewed, according to the press materials, and Seralini confirmed that it was in an email to Retraction Watch. But we were curious what “any kind of appraisal of the paper’s content should not be connoted” meant. We asked Seralini and the editor of Environmental Sciences Europe, Henner Hollert, but neither responded.

Hollert has responded to the same question from Nature, which reports: Continue reading Republished Seralini GMO-rat study was not peer-reviewed, says editor

Alleged Medicare cheat loses paper for data mix-up

A Boston doctor indicted on charges of Medicare fraud in 2007 has had a paper relating to the case retracted this month.

Abdul Razzaque Ahmed was considered something of a miracle worker by his patients, treating two rare and disfiguring skin conditions called pemphigoid and pemphigus vulgaris. He used more powerful medicines than the typical course of treatment, including a drug normally used to treat cancer.

The initial indictment stated that Ahmed mixed blood samples to falsely show a “dual diagnosis” of both diseases, and prove to Medicare that they required the more rigorous (and expensive) treatment. It also alleged that he profited massively from the government pay-outs. He was convicted of obstruction in 2007; the other charges were dropped when he agreed to forfeit assets worth $2.9 million.

Now, a 2001 paper by Ahmed, which claimed fifteen patients had a dual diagnosis, has been retracted because the samples were all mixed. Here is the retraction notice from Clinical Immunology: Continue reading Alleged Medicare cheat loses paper for data mix-up

Don’t walk this way: Stalking paper halted for plagiarism

MSLPro tip: If you’re going to write about stalking, it’s probably best if you don’t get too close to your material.

That’s a lesson a group of researchers in Italy was forced to learn the hard way. They lost their 2013 article in Medicine, Science and the Law for being too similar to a 2008 paper by different authors in another journal.

According to the abstract: Continue reading Don’t walk this way: Stalking paper halted for plagiarism

Physicists with retraction for a “pattern that was unphysical” lose another for manipulation

journal of applied physicsIn September, we wrote about the retraction of a physics paper for “a pattern that was unphysical.”

The team, whose first author, R.K. Singhal refused to sign the notice, has had another paper retracted, this one in the Journal of Applied Physics. Here’s the notice for “Study of electronic structure and magnetization correlations in hydrogenated and vacuum annealed Ni doped ZnO:” Continue reading Physicists with retraction for a “pattern that was unphysical” lose another for manipulation

Retracted Seralini GMO-rat study republished

env sci europeA highly controversial — and retracted — 2012 study by Gilles Seralini and colleagues of the effects of genetically modified maize and the Roundup herbicide on rats has been republished.

Retraction Watch readers may recall that the editor of Food and Chemical Toxicology decided to retract the heavily criticized paper because it was “inconclusive.” The editor, A. Wallace Hayes, claimed that this was consistent with Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, although we and many others disagreed.

Here’s the original abstract of the Food and Chemical Toxicology paper, which has been cited 55 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge: Continue reading Retracted Seralini GMO-rat study republished

RIKEN inquiry prompted by STAP stem cell controversy generates three corrections

rikenlogo_enA review of past publications by the Japanese research institution RIKEN has produced three corrections of articles by a molecular geneticist, Haruhiko Koseki, The Scientist is reporting. The articles had appeared in Molecular and Cellular Biology between 2005 and 2010.

The review was triggered by the scandal involving Haruko Obokata, a former RIKEN scientist whose work on STAP stem cells has come under scrutiny. However, RIKEN officials said the corrections are unrelated to the Obokata case. Obokata has reportedly agreed to retract two of her articles in Nature. (RIKEN has released an English-language translation of its response to Obokata’s appeal against charges of research misconduct.)

According to The Scientist, Koseki was a member of a committee charged with investigating Obokata’s STAP results: Continue reading RIKEN inquiry prompted by STAP stem cell controversy generates three corrections

Cancer genetics group retracts three papers for “inappropriate presentation of data”

jbc 620A group of cancer genetics researchers in Italy and the U.S. has retracted three papers in the Journal of Biological Chemistry (JBC) after it became aware they had duplicated some bands in their figures.

Here are the three papers: Continue reading Cancer genetics group retracts three papers for “inappropriate presentation of data”

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

Recombinant protein paper retracted for recombining others’ work

biomed research intThe Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology — now BioMed Research International — has retracted a 2012 paper by a group from China who seem really to have admired a related 2007 article by a team from the Scripps Research Institute — and evidently other work, as well.

Here’s the abstract of the now-retracted paper, titled “Stable Plastid Transformation for High-Level Recombinant Protein Expression: Promises and Challenges” (emphasis ours): Continue reading Recombinant protein paper retracted for recombining others’ work

Duplication forces retraction of liver cancer paper

biomed research intBioMed Research International has retracted a 2013 paper after it became clear that it was lifted from another 2013 paper about the same subject by some of the same authors.

According to the retraction notice: Continue reading Duplication forces retraction of liver cancer paper