The authors of a 2013 Journal of Neuroscience study suggesting that “elevation of brain magnesium…may have therapeutic potential for treating [Alzheimer’s disease] in humans” have retracted it after finding errors in the work.
Here’s the original abstract:
Continue reading Authors retract study suggesting magnesium prevents Alzheimer’s in mice
The authors of a paper in Physical Review Letters have retracted it, after another researcher pointed out a mistake.
F. Sattin and D.F. Escande write in the notice for “Alfvénic Propagation: A Key to Nonlocal Effects in Magnetized Plasmas” (which is behind a paywall) that after the paper was published, they “we became aware of a fundamental error in the normalization of our equations.” Excerpt: Continue reading Doing the right thing: Physicists retract paper after becoming aware of “a fundamental error”
Almost two years ago, we brought you — with the help of Trevor Stokes — the story of a stem cell researcher in Korea whose publication record, and career, unraveled after evidence of image manipulation surfaced in her work.
We’ve reported on four retractions, all in Antioxidants & Redox Signaling, by Soo-Kyung Kang, formerly of Seoul National University resulting from the efforts of a whistleblower. There has been another in Human Gene Therapy: Continue reading Stem cell researcher in Korea up to half a dozen retractions
The publisher Taylor & Francis has decided to pulp all existing copies of a 2012 book on science communication, and suspend electronic copies indefinitely, after it became clear that the text was plagiarized from the work of another author.
The book, Clear and Concise Communications for Scientists and Engineers, was written by energy and environmental consultant James G. Speight. According to Colin Purrington — the creator of a very popular poster tips site whose past attempts to protect his intellectual property may be familiar to Retraction Watch readers — pages 166-169 are “largely copied” from Purrington’s page on scientific poster design.
In a letter to Taylor & Francis, Purrington wrote:
A group of authors in South Korea has lost their 2012 paper in Clinical Cardiology because, well, they weren’t a group after all.
The paper, “Correlation of Electrocardiographic Changes and Myocardial Fibrosis in Patients With Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Detected by Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging,” came from corresponding author Hyun Suk Yang, of Konkuk University School of Medicine in Seoul, and a half-dozen colleagues. At least, that’s what the manuscript said.
But according to the retraction notice, Yang had nothing to do with the paper — nor did five other co-authors. Continue reading Heart study retracted because it was submitted without permission of most of the authors
Articles, like lawn furniture, aren’t supposed to rust after just two months. But the Journal of Materials Chemistry A has issued an Expression of Concern for a February 2014 paper by a group of chemists from India over possible problems with several figures in the article.
The paper, “Hierarchically macro/mesostructured porous copper oxide: Facile synthesis, Characterization, Catalytic performance and Electrochemical study of mesoporous copper oxide monoliths,” was written by Gowhar Ahmad Naikoo, of the department of chemistry at Dr. Hari Singh Gour Central University, in Sagar, and two colleagues. It purported to find that:
Continue reading Expression of Concern tarnishes copper oxide paper
I shot the sheriff
But I didn’t shoot no deputy, oh no! Oh!
I shot the sheriff
But I didn’t shoot no deputy, ooh, ooh, oo-ooh.
—Bob Marley
A group of pharmacologists in Japan has retracted their 2012 article in the International Journal of Pharmaceutics for plagiarism. But not, they note, for any other reason.
The article, “Suppression of efflux transporters in the intestines of endotoxin-treated rats,” came from researchers in the Department of Drug Absorption and Pharmacokinetics in the School of Pharmacy at Tokyo University of Pharmacy and Life Sciences. It has been cited once, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.
Continue reading Integrity of data “undisputed” in paper pulled for plagiarism
Age has retracted a 2012 article by a group of scientists from the National Institutes of Health and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston after an NIH inquiry turned up evidence of data manipulation in the work.
The article, “Aging decreases rate of docosahexaenoic acid synthesis-secretion from circulating unesterified α-linolenic acid by rat liver,” came from the lab of Stanley Rapoport, chief of the brain physiology and metabolism section of the National Institute on Aging.
As the abstract explained: Continue reading NIH/Harvard team loses aging study to manipulated data
A new paper in Intelligence is offering some, well, intel into the peer review process at one prestigious neuroscience journal.
The new paper is about another paper, a December 2012 study, “Fractionating Human Intelligence,” published in Neuron by Adam Hampshire and colleagues in December 2012. The Neuron study has been cited 16 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.
Richard Haier and colleagues write in Intelligence that Continue reading Anonymous blog comment suggests lack of confidentiality in peer review — and plays role in a new paper
Last year, we reported on a Nature correction of a paper for what a McGill University committee had earlier called “intentionally contrived and falsified” figures. It turns out that the correction — like the original paper — left some Nature readers puzzled, so the journal has run a correction of the correction: Continue reading Nature corrects a correction