Milena Penkowa, the Danish neuroscientist who resigned from the University of Copenhagen in December 2010 amid suspicions of misconduct, has had another paper retracted.
The new retraction appears in Experimental Neurology. Here’s the notice for “M-CSF deficiency leads to reduced metallothioneins I and II expression and increased tissue damage in the brain stem after 6-aminonicotinamide treatment”: Continue reading Penkowa notches fourth retraction, in Experimental Neurology
The South African Review of Sociology has retracted a 1989 paper by an author who must have figured the source — a 1975 article — was sufficiently well removed from institutional memory to catch anyone’s eye.
Evidently that was a safe bet for a generation. But we’re guessing the Internet permitted the detective work that eventually brought the theft to light.
The article was titled (oddly), “Doing the Knowledge in Literature and Sociology,” and its author was P.N.G. Beard, who since 2008 has been group chief education officer at Educor, “the largest provider of private education in Southern Africa.” Beard seems to have written an academic text or two, with titles including “Problems of Pedagogics: Pedagogics and the Study of Education in South Africa,” and “The Child Is Father of the Man: Inaugural Lecture.”
Here’s the retraction notice: Continue reading Journal retracts a 24-year-old sociology paper for plagiarism–of a 1975 article
The authors of a 2008 Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS) paper have retracted it after a structure was “mistakenly assigned.”
The article, “Highly Enantioselective Radical Addition to N-Benzoyl Hydrazones Using Chiral Ammonium Salts,” was written by Doo Ok Jang and Sang Yoon Kim, chemists at Yonsei University, in Wonju. According to the abstract (which includes this molecular schema):
Continue reading Carbon copies? Authors retract paper from leading chemistry journal
The chemistry blogs have been buzzing this week with the story of a paper in the journal Organometallics that may — or may not — contain fabricated data.
But what makes the story a bit juicier — and yes, it’s sad that fabricated data is a bit ho-hum for us — is that one of the authors of the article appears to have been caught in the act of instructing the first author to make up results.
The article, “Synthesis, Structure, and Catalytic Studies of Palladium and Platinum Bis-Sulfoxide Complexes,” appeared last month and came from a group at the Institute for Organic Chemistry at the University of Zurich. The authors were Emma E. Drinkel, Linglin Wu, Anthony Linden and Reto Dorta.
As ChemBark reported earlier this week:
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