Category: by publisher

Hey authors, “Renewable Energy” doesn’t mean you can recycle words

renewableenergycoverRenewable Energy may cover conservation, but that doesn’t mean it expects its authors to recycle their own words. The Elsevier journal is retracting a biodiesel paper it published in February 2012 by a group of Chinese researchers who published much the same work in another title a month later. That periodical, the Journal of the American Oil Chemists Society, from Springer, has retracted its version as well.

Here’s the notice in Renewable Energy: Continue reading Hey authors, “Renewable Energy” doesn’t mean you can recycle words

The 39 retractions: Stapel’s count rises again

stapel_npcIt’s getting hard to keep up. A day ago, we noted that Diederik Stapel’s retraction count had risen to 38. But later in the day, we heard about number 39, from the European Journal of Social Psychology.

Here’s the notice for “Making sense of war: Using the interpretation comparison model to understand the Iraq conflict”: Continue reading The 39 retractions: Stapel’s count rises again

Duplication leads to retraction of 1997 paper on heart disease genes

crit rev clin lab sciA top cardiology researcher, Robert Hegele, of the Robarts Research Institute at the University of Western Ontario, has retracted a 15-year-old review after editors were made aware that it was “very similar” to another of his reviews.

Here’s the December 2012 notice for the paper, which has been cited 23 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge: Continue reading Duplication leads to retraction of 1997 paper on heart disease genes

Neuroscientists retract Cell autism model paper for “improperly assembled” figures

cell 1-17-13A group of authors have retracted a Cell paper describing a mouse model of autism because of image problems.

The senior author on the paper — there were 22 altogether — is Paul Worley of Johns Hopkins. Here’s the notice for “Enhanced Polyubiquitination of Shank3 and NMDA Receptor in a Mouse Model of Autism:” Continue reading Neuroscientists retract Cell autism model paper for “improperly assembled” figures

Note to authors: Please don’t use the word “novel” when you plagiarize

compbiomedcoverRetraction Watch Rule 5.1, which governs ironic article titles (and does not actually exist), clearly states that researchers who plagiarize should avoid the use of words like “new” or “novel” when describing their research (or lack thereof). Failure to adhere to Rule 5.1 can lead to embarrassment — as in the case below.

A pair of electrical engineers from Islamic Azad University, in Isfahan, Iran, has lost their 2012 article in Computers in Biology and Medicine, titled “A novel real-time patient-specific seizure diagnosis algorithm based on analysis of EEG and ECG signals using spectral and spatial features and improved particle swarm optimization classifier,” because, well, it wasn’t. Turns out, the researchers lifted data from an Irish group who, several years earlier, had proposed their own “novel algorithm for neonatal seizure detection.”

As the admirably detailed retraction notice explains: Continue reading Note to authors: Please don’t use the word “novel” when you plagiarize

Royal jelly figure flushed: Author removes figure from 2002 paper

j biochemRoyal jelly — “the goo that sustains honeybees destined for royalty” and is touted dubiously for everything “from youthful skin to virility,” as Nature put it — is apparently a hot research topic. So when a Retraction Watch tipster sent us a corrigendum that seemed to have done something we hadn’t seen before — retract a single figure, without saying why — we figured we’d check it out.

Here’s the text of the corrigendum: Continue reading Royal jelly figure flushed: Author removes figure from 2002 paper

Diederik Stapel earns 33rd and 34th retractions

stapel_npcTwo more retractions for Diederik Stapel, his 33rd and 34th, by our count.

The Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, which has been a frequent subject of Retraction Watch posts recently, has retracted “Similarities and differences between the impact of traits and expectancies: What matters is whether the target stimulus is ambiguous or mixed:” Continue reading Diederik Stapel earns 33rd and 34th retractions

Not-smart moves in “smart homes” paper prompt retraction

rsercover213Here’s a thought: If you’re going to write about the “challenges of information and communication technology,” it’s probably best not to use the Internet to plagiarize.

We’re guessing a group of researchers from Serbia is kicking themselves over missing that memo.

The researchers, from Singidunum University in Belgrade, published a 2012 paper in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews titled “Challenges of information and communication technology in energy efficient smart homes.” The work was supported by a grant from the Serbian government.

But according to a new retraction notice: Continue reading Not-smart moves in “smart homes” paper prompt retraction

Leading cancer researcher retracts 2003 paper for “inappropriate presentation”

cancer cellOne of the world’s leading cancer researchers, MIT’s Robert Weinberg, has retracted a decade-old paper after finding out it contained errors.

Here’s the notice for “Ras Modulates Myc Activity to Repress Thrombospondin-1 Expression and Increase Tumor Angiogenesis,” a paper originally published in Cancer Cell in 2003: Continue reading Leading cancer researcher retracts 2003 paper for “inappropriate presentation”

Do as I say, not as I do? Duplication in ethics journal earns author five-year publishing ban

j business ethicsThe next time a business professor in Thailand is looking for an ethics case study, he might look no further than the mirror.

Mohammad Asif Salam earned himself a five-year ban on publishing in a Springer journal after publishing work there that he’d already published elsewhere. Here’s the notice for “Corporate social responsibility in purchasing and supply chain,” a paper which appeared in the Journal of Business Ethics in 2009: Continue reading Do as I say, not as I do? Duplication in ethics journal earns author five-year publishing ban