A group of animal health researchers from the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences have lost their 2009 paper in the Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology because they’d published the data in at least four other articles.
The paper, “Two Novel Duck Antibacterial Peptides, Avian β-Defensins 9 and 10, with Antimicrobial Activity,” reported that: Continue reading Birds of a feather: Authors who play games with fowl data earn multiple retractions
Two of three authors in Argentina of a 2002 paper purporting to show evidence of bird-like fossil footprints from the Late Triassic age have retracted it after subsequent research suggested their estimates were off.
Here’s the notice for “Bird-like fossil footprints from the Late Triassic:” Continue reading Authors retract Nature paper on bird-like footprints thought to date to Late Triassic
Irony alert: If you’re going to write a paper about face recognition technology, well, do we really need to go on?
A group of researchers in Wuhan, China, evidently didn’t quite realize they were walking into a ridicule trap when they agreed to have their paper, “Face Recognition with Learning-based Descriptor,” published in IERI Procedia. The article appeared in 2012 and was part of an issue devote to that year’s International Conference on Future Computer Supported Education, which took place in Seoul.
And now comes this: Continue reading That face rings a bell, but where have I published it before?
Maybe it was a case of hitting the “send” button a bit too soon, or maybe it was a spasm of seller’s remorse, but a group of Chinese researchers has retracted a paper they’d published preliminarily a few months earlier.
The paper, “Antitumor and immunomodulatory activity of a polysaccharide from fungus Coprinus comatus (Mull.:Fr.) Gray,” by a group from various institutions in Shaanxi, appeared in April on the website of International Journal of Biological Macromolecules (as what appears to have been an uncorrected proof). But that didn’t stick.
According to a retraction notice dated August 2nd: Continue reading Anticancer-fungus paper retracted because some of the results “may be inaccurate”
Diederik Stapel is up to 54 retractions.
Here’s the notice from Self and Identity: Continue reading Measure by measure: Diederik Stapel count rises again, to 54
One of the things we try to do here at Retraction Watch is see what happens to researchers who’ve had to retract papers. There’s Naoki Mori, who lost his job because of extensive image manipulation but sued successfully to get it back, for example.
Now, courtesy of the Oakland Press, we have the story of two academics at Oakland University in Michigan who were promoted after being forced to retract two papers for duplication — and earning a ban on publishing in one society’s journals. Continue reading What happens to researchers who publish duplicated papers? At one university, they’re promoted
A group of international psychology researchers is retracting three papers in the wake of revelations that they failed to adequately safeguard the identities of the patients who participated in the studies.
So far, only one article has been formally retracted. That article, “Combining biofeedback and Narrative Exposure Therapy for persistent pain and PTSD in refugees: a pilot study,” appeared last year in the European Journal of Psychotramatology. Its authors were Naser Morina, Thomas Maier, Richard Bryant, Christine Knaevelsrud, Lutz Wittmann, Michael Rufer, Ulrich Schnyder and Julia Müller.
According to the notice: Continue reading Privacy breach prompts retraction of three papers from the trauma literature
Irony alert: If you’re going to write articles about recurrent neural networks, make sure they don’t, well, recur.
The journal Neural Networks has retracted a 2012 paper by a group of researchers from Spain for publishing what amounted to a repeat of a 2011 article in a different but closely related journal. Scientific publishing, alas, is not like Hollywood, where remakes of movies and TV shows is not only acceptable, it seems to be the only flavor producers are willing to taste.
The article was titled “Hopf Bifurcation Stability in Hopfield Neural Networks” — Hopf, for those keeping score at home, is Eberhard Hopf, a famous (and politically controversial) mathematician and founder of something called ergodic theory — and it came from scientists at the University of La Laguna, in the Canary Islands.
According to the notice: Continue reading Neural Networks retracts rerun
We have knocked the Journal of Biological Chemistry in the past for what we believed to be needless — and unhelpful — obfuscation. And more recently, we have praised the journal for taking what we believe to be positive steps in the direction of greater transparency.
Here, again, we come not to bury JBC but to praise it.
The journal has issued a retraction for a 2011 article by a group of researchers in London, England, led by Stephen Perkins. The paper, “The solution structure of heparan sulfate differs from that of heparin,” purported to show that:
Continue reading Retraction of JBC heparan paper shows much to like
The Journal of Neuro-Oncology has retracted a 2009 article on brain tumors for what’s clearly plagiarism — but which is called everything but.
The article was titled “Glioma grading: sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of diffusion and perfusion imaging,” and it came from a group at the Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, in Trivandrum, India.
Here’s the — rather laughable — retraction notice, which dances around the matter about as deftly as a freshman with the prom queen:
Continue reading Retraction notice for cancer paper gives wide berth to the “p” word