Category: by publisher

Paper cuts? Duplication, data manipulation force retraction of study of circumcision by ring device

A group of Chinese authors studying the Shang Ring, “a device that allows professionals to perform hundreds rather than tens of” circumcisions in a day, as had to retract the paper after editors apparently figured out they had changed some dates in the paper so it wouldn’t look as though they were trying to publish it twice. Or maybe they just changed the dates for some other reason, while publishing it twice anyway — it’s not clear.

Here’s the Journal of Urology notice for “A Randomized Clinical Study of Circumcision with a Ring Device Versus Conventional Circumcision,” by Cheng Yuea and colleagues from the Medical College of Ningbo University, the Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, and Taizhou First People’s Hospital: Continue reading Paper cuts? Duplication, data manipulation force retraction of study of circumcision by ring device

Chemistry journal and author retract paper dogged by questions since its publication in 2006

A chemistry journal has retracted a 2006 paper that had knowledgeable researchers scratching their heads from the minute it was published.

Here’s the notice: Continue reading Chemistry journal and author retract paper dogged by questions since its publication in 2006

Australian government-funded study of deforestation, climate retracted for intellectual property conflicts

In circumstances we haven’t quite sorted out, an Australian climate researcher has retracted a paper because he didn’t have the right to use data from a now-shuttered government program.

Ravinesh Deo, of the University of Southern Queensland, published “A review and modelling results of the simulated response of deforestation on climate extremes in eastern Australia” in Atmospheric Researchin May of this year.

Last week, this retraction notice appeared: Continue reading Australian government-funded study of deforestation, climate retracted for intellectual property conflicts

How does it feel to have your scientific paper plagiarized? Part 2

On May 11 of this year, Juan Antonio Baeza, an environmental engineering researcher at Universitat Autonoma Barcelona was looking for papers in Water Research about knowledge-based systems, the subject of his 1999 PhD thesis. As he tells Retraction Watch, when he came across “Improving the efficiencies of simultaneous organic substance and nitrogen removal in a multi-stage loop membrane bioreactor-based PWWTP using an on-line Knowledge-Based Expert System”:

I started to read this paper and some sentences of the abstract were interesting,  well, really I thought that I would have written that with the same words! But after reading some parts of the paper I realized that those were really my words of a previous paper published in the same journal in 2002.

I started to compare it and around 40-50% of the paper was a direct copy of my paper without changing even a comma.

So he wrote to the journal on May 14: Continue reading How does it feel to have your scientific paper plagiarized? Part 2

Two Moriguchi stem cell papers being retracted

It was, as Nature News wrote last month, a story that “seemed too good to be true:”

Stem-cell transplant claims debunked

Transplant of induced pluripotent stem cells to treat heart failure probably never happened

Hisashi Moriguchi, a visiting researcher at the University of Tokyo, had claimed a result that would have put him years ahead of researchers toiling in stem cell research. But the claims were met with a great deal of doubt — to say the least — and the story began to unravel when Harvard, where Moriguchi said he’d done the work, denied it had ever taken place.

And as expected, the retractions have now started. Today, a Nature Publishing Group journal said they would be retracting two papers, “A therapeutic method for the direct reprogramming of human liver cancer cells with only chemicals” and “Successful cryopreservation of human ovarian cortex tissues using supercooling.” The notices for the Scientific Reports papers will both say the same thing: Continue reading Two Moriguchi stem cell papers being retracted

Intent was there, but not the intention-to-treat analysis: Breast cancer study retracted

A group of Dutch researchers has retracted a paper they published in March after apparently learning that they’d bungled their statistical analysis in the study.

The article, “Effects of a pre-visit educational website on information recall and needs fulfilment in breast cancer genetic counselling, a randomized controlled trial,” was published in Breast Cancer Research by Akke Albada of the Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research and colleagues.

But according to the notice, Utrecht, we have a problem: Continue reading Intent was there, but not the intention-to-treat analysis: Breast cancer study retracted

Make it a double: Alcohol treatment study pulled for duplication

European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry has retracted a 2003 paper on the treatment of alcoholism for a vague “copyright violation.” But the reason appears to be that the article was largely identical to a 2002 report from one of the authors and other colleagues.

The offending paper, “Acamprosate and its efficacy in treating alcohol dependent adolescents,” appeared in June 2003 and has been cited 51 times, according to Google Scholar. The authors were Helmut Niederhofer and Wolfgang Staffen, of the Christian Doppler-Klinik, in Salzburg.

According to the rather uninformative notice: Continue reading Make it a double: Alcohol treatment study pulled for duplication

You’ve been dupe’d: Catching up on authors who liked their work enough to use it again

photo by Mark Turnauckas via Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/marktee/

As we’ve noted before, we generally let duplication retractions make their way to the bottom of our to-do pile, since there’s often less of an interesting story behind them, duplication is hardly the worst of publishing sins, and the notices usually tell the story. (These are often referred to — imprecisely — as “self-plagiarism.”)

But that skews what’s represented here — boy, are there a lot of duplication retractions we haven’t covered! — and we might as well be more comprehensive. Plus, our eagle-eyed readers may find issues that we won’t see on a quick scan.

So with this post, we’re inaugurating a new feature here at Retraction Watch, “You’ve been dupe’d.” Every now and then, we’ll gather five of these duplication retractions at a time, and post them so they get into the mix, and into our category listing (see drop-down menu in right-hand column if you haven’t already). Here are the first five: Continue reading You’ve been dupe’d: Catching up on authors who liked their work enough to use it again

And then there were 28: Two more retractions for Diederik Stapel

Achtentwintig.

That’s 28 in Dutch, and is the number of retractions so far racked up by Diederik Stapel, according to our count.

The latest two to come to our attention are in the British Journal of Social Psychology, where Stapel has already had a retraction.

Here’s one notice: Continue reading And then there were 28: Two more retractions for Diederik Stapel

Hydrogen study has “merit” — just not enough to avoid retraction

The International Journal of Hydrogen Energy has retracted a paper by a group from Malaysia and India who, reading between the lines, couldn’t quite get the low notes to overcome what the high notes lacked. Or something like that.

The paper, “Hydrogen production from sea water using waste aluminium and calcium oxide,” appears to have come out of the quaintly named 7th Petite Workshop on the Defect Chemical Nature of Energy Materials, held in March 2011 in Norway.

According to the notice: Continue reading Hydrogen study has “merit” — just not enough to avoid retraction