Category: by publisher

Med student loses paper when former boss claims right to data

jnsAs a first-year medical student at the University of California, San Diego, Jessica Tang already has an impressive CV. Her name has appeared on ten papers in the medical literature, including three in the Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. On one of these she was the sole author.

Except that one doesn’t exist anymore. But the reason for the retraction does not appear to involve shoddy work by the researcher. Rather, Tang failed to appreciate the politics of the lab in which she worked — and it cost her.

Continue reading Med student loses paper when former boss claims right to data

Retraction Watch, Noah Webster style, cardiology edition

intjcardiolPlagiarism and duplication might involve the same act — the misuse of text and/or data — but they are different species. Take it from Eldon Smith, who as editor of the Canadian Journal of Cardiology defined the two acts of misconduct for his readers:

Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results or words without giving appropriate credit (1). One usually thinks of plagiarism in science as publishing phrases, sentences or passages (without attribution) that were previously published by someone else. …

If an author publishes the same article twice, he or she is guilty not only of the misconduct of duplicate publication, but also of plagiarism; this time, the author has plagiarized himself or herself. Unfortunately, such blatant misconduct is not rare. … It is difficult to understand how this can be interpreted as an honest error.

Perhaps the editors of the International Journal of Cardiology might want to take a look at Smith’s editorial. Continue reading Retraction Watch, Noah Webster style, cardiology edition

Proteomics paper retracted for plagiarized figure of mysterious origin

proteomicsThe journal Proteomics has retracted a paper for a plagiarized figure — but how the authors came to possess the image in the first place remains a mystery.

Here’s the notice: Continue reading Proteomics paper retracted for plagiarized figure of mysterious origin

Forbidden fruit: duplication of mango paper forces retraction

Here’s some friendly advice. If you’re going to publish a paper titled “In ImageVitro Studies for Resistance to Anthracnose Disease (Colletotrichum gloeosporioides Penz.) in Different Mango Hybrid Seedlings,” make sure the article is in fact, well…different.

The International Journal of Fruit Science, a Taylor & Francis title, has retracted the above paper, by a group from the Central Institute for Subtropical Horticulture, in Lucknow, India. The reason: Continue reading Forbidden fruit: duplication of mango paper forces retraction

Mean streets: Expert on lying accuses planning association of ethical lapses

citiescoverA U.K. urban planner and self-styled expert on “truth and lying” has launched a forceful attack on the ethics of a key trade association, accusing it of refusing to promote his work for fear that the findings might be damaging to the profession.

And what, you’re asking, does this have to do with retractions? Trust us. This story’s harder to follow than a New Jersey left turn ramp — but we think you’ll enjoy it.

As a road map, here are a few key players in the drama:
Continue reading Mean streets: Expert on lying accuses planning association of ethical lapses

Paper linking cell phones during pregnancy to behavior problems in mice corrected

scientificreportsThe authors of a study published last year looking at the effects of cell phone exposure on mice in utero have corrected a figure after it was questioned. New experiments, they write, confirm the original conclusions they drew from the figure.

Here’s the corrected figure from the paper in Scientific Reports, published by Nature Publishing Group: Continue reading Paper linking cell phones during pregnancy to behavior problems in mice corrected

Facebook study retracted after authors request substantial changes

cyberpsychThe journal Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking is retracting a paper about Facebook.

“Bridging the Gap on Facebook: Assessing Intergroup Contact and Its Effects for Intergroup Relations,” is by Sandy Schumann of the Free University of Brussels. The notice says only:

This article has been officially retracted from the Journal.

We asked journal editor Brenda K. Wiederhold for more information about the retraction, and she responded: Continue reading Facebook study retracted after authors request substantial changes

Duplication leads to collapse in Nondestructive Testing

Call it uncreative non-destruction. ntecover

A team from China and, it appears, Mississippi, has lost a paper in Nondestructive Testing and Evaluation for duplicate publication.

Here’s the notice (a PDF): Continue reading Duplication leads to collapse in Nondestructive Testing

MIT lab retracts Cell synapse tagging paper for falsification or fabrication

cell feb 2013A rising star at MIT has retracted a paper after an investigation found that her former postdoc had “falsified or fabricated figures.”

Alice Ting, winner of an NIH Directors Pioneer Award and named one of Technology Review’s “Innovators Under 35,” published the paper, “Imaging Activity-Dependent Regulation of Neurexin-Neuroligin Interactions Using trans-Synaptic Enzymatic Biotinylation,” in Cell in 2010 along with Amar Thyagarajan.

The notice is refreshingly detailed given the circumstances: Continue reading MIT lab retracts Cell synapse tagging paper for falsification or fabrication

Not in my journal: Two editors take stock of misconduct in their fields — and don’t find much

biol conservToday brings two journal editorials about misconduct and retractions. They take, if we may, a bit of an optimistic and perhaps even blindered approach.

In an editorial titled “Scientific misconduct occurs, but is rare,” Boston University’s Richard Primack, editor of Biological Conservation, highlights a Corrigendum of a paper by Jesus Angel Lemus, the veterinary researcher who has retracted seven papers: Continue reading Not in my journal: Two editors take stock of misconduct in their fields — and don’t find much