Sometimes, it’s easiest and most straightforward if we just let retraction notices sink in before we comment on them.
Take this one from Semigroup Forum, signed by Chong-yih Wu of National Pingtung Institute of Commerce, Pingtung, Taiwan: Continue reading No, math prof, Google isn’t a proper literature search (and don’t plagiarize your dead mentor)
For the second time in a week, we’ve seen a journal retract a paper because it duplicated something in its own archive. Yesterday, it was a case of plagiarism in a plant journal. Today, we find that the Journal of Anatomy has retracted an article it published earlier this year by a group of Slovenian authors who took a page (or several) out of their 1995 article in the same periodical.
The article, “Muscles within muscles: a tensiomyographic and histochemical analysis of the normal human vastus medialis longus and vastus medialis obliquus muscles,” came from researchers in the department of orthopedic surgery at the University Medical Centre in Ljubjana. According to the abstract: Continue reading Retraction for authors of muscle paper who lifted data from their own 18-year-old article
Scientia Horticulturae, a plant journal published by Elsevier, has retracted a paper after realizing it was a graft of another that appeared in its pages.
Here’s the notice for “Water stress effects on Cumin (Cuminum cyminum L.) yield and oil essential components,” by Farshid Vazin, Islamic Azad University, Gonabad, Iran: Continue reading Plant journal retracts paper for plagiarism — of another study in the same journal
A team of researchers led by Daniel St. Johnston, director of the Gurdon Institute at Cambridge and a prominent developmental biologist in the UK, has lost a pair of articles after finding that their data were unreliable. But rather than “correct” the record with subsequent papers, they’ve withdrawn the problematic work.
To our mind, this is a poster case of doing the right thing by science. We think the notices — as provided by the authors and reported by the journals — pretty much say it all, so we’ll let them speak for themselves, followed by some details St. Johnston shared with us.
The first article, “LKB1 and AMPK maintain epithelial cell polarity under energetic stress,” appeared in 2007 in the Journal of Cell Biology and has been cited 108 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.
According to the retraction notice:
Here’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
A group of researchers in South Africa has lost their 2012 article in BMC Research Notes after one of the author’s institutions evidently pulled rank and sought to claim the data as its own.
The article, “Association of body weight and physical activity with blood pressure in a rural population in the Dikgale village of Limpopo Province in South Africa,” appeared last February. Its first author was Seth Mkhonto, who listed two affiliations, the Human Sciences Research Council, in Pretoria, and the University of the Limpopo.
But the latter institution seems not to have given Mkhonto approval to publish the data — a rather strange state of affairs given the whole “publish or perish” ethos of academia.
According to the retraction notice: Continue reading Dispute over data rights forces retraction of obesity paper
It really isn’t fair to pick on Pattern Recognition Letters, but, well, if the shoe fits…
We had fun at the expense of the journal the last time we found that a duplicate publication had escaped the editors. This time, plagiarism is to blame.
A group of authors from the Institute of Automation at the Chinese Academy of Sciences published, then promptly lost, their September 2013 article in PRL titled “Model-based 3D tracking of an articulated hand from single depth images.”
The abstract: Continue reading Sensing a pattern? Pattern Recognition Letters misses rampant plagiarism in modeling paper
Analytical Letters has retracted a 2011 article by a chemistry researcher at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio, who seems to have avoided giving credit where credit was due.
The article, “Conducting Polymer Matrix Poly(2,2′-bithiophene) Mercury Metal Incorporation,” was written (so readers were told) by Suzanne Lunsford.
Here’s how the retraction notice explains it: Continue reading Analyze this! Analytical Letters retracts chemistry paper for authorship misdirection
Irony alert: If you’re going to publish in the Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, you’d better be able to play well with others.
Not so, it seems, with a certain Darrel Montero. Montero, an associate professor in the School of Social Work at Arizona State University, and his colleagues have lost their 2012 paper in the journal for what appears to be a case of data theft.
As the retraction notice explains:
Continue reading Social work researchers lose paper for misuse of data
The Journal of Pediatric Nursing has retracted a 2013 article (meeting abstract, really) on growth hormone after the drug company that employed the authors cried “take it back.”
The research appears to have been presented at a meeting of the Pediatric Endocrinology Nursing Society, and looked at inefficiency in the use of devices for administering growth hormone. All but one of the authors is listed as working for Novo Nordisk, an international pharmaceutical firm.
Here’s the notice: Continue reading Nursing journal pulls Novo Nordisk growth hormone paper over data provenance