The retraction count is up to 13 for Dutch psychology fraudster Diederik Stapel, with four more in the publications the Journal of Consumer Research, Motivation & Emotion, Psychology & Marketing, and Social Cognition.
Here are the notices: Continue reading We’re up to 13: Retractions keep coming for Diederik Stapel
Ulrich Lichtenthaler, a management professor at the University of Mannheim who has retracted three papers for statistical irregularities, has another retraction for his CV, this one in the Strategic Management Journal.
There’s no notice yet; all that appears for the January 2012 paper is this: Continue reading Retraction four appears for management professor Ulrich Lichtenthaler
A pair of authors have retracted a paper in Nutrition Reviews after it became clear that parts were plagiarized from work by a nutritionist who had died in an accident just weeks after writing the material.
The retraction reads in full: Continue reading Authors retract nutrition review that plagiarized deceased researcher
Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica has retracted a 2008 paper by a group of Estonian researchers who appear to have wound up in legal jeopardy for misrepresenting their work.
Here’s the notice: Continue reading Anesthesia journal retracts paper from Estonian researchers in wake of legal inquiry
The American Journal of the Medical Sciences has retracted a 2012 article on premature heartbeats by a group of authors in Missouri who took “significant” liberties with an earlier paper in Heart.
The offending paper, “Ventricular ectopic beats: an overview of management considerations, “was written by Amar Jadhav and colleagues at the University of Missouri School of Medicine, in Columbia, and published in the February issue of the AJMS.
According to the retraction notice: Continue reading Mizzou investigating faculty as one heart beats as two in plagiarized — and now retracted — cardiac paper
The British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology has issued an “expression of concern” for a 2003 review article, based on a previous lecture, with close echoes to a paper that had appeared in one of The Lancet titles.
Here’s the notice for the article, by Peter Winstanley, dean of the Warwick Medical School in the United Kingdom: Continue reading Pharmacology journal expresses concern over “similar, but updated” review
We have long (well, for the past two years) wondered about the pitfalls of publishing in one’s own journal, and here’s a case that illustrates precisely how fraught that practice can be.
The journal Microfluidics and Nanofluidics has retracted a 2010 article, titled “Induced-charge electrokinetic phenomena,” by Dongqing Li and Yasaman Daghighi, of the University of Waterloo in Canada, for what appears to be extensive misappropriation of text and data.
As the notice explains: Continue reading Plagiarism costs Canadian lab-on-a-chip researcher a paper — in his own journal
A team of what you might call daredevil researchers has lost a paper about a sport called cable wakeboarding after they tried to publish, in English, a very similar version of what they’d published in German.
We have a confession to make: Before sitting down to write this post, we had no idea what cable wakeboarding was. So before we discuss the retraction, here’s a definition, courtesy of CableWakeboarding.com:
Cable wakeboarding is simply wakeboarding while being pulled not by a boat, but by an overhead cableski system. It’s definitely the coolest addition to the distinguished list of extreme sports throughout the world, because it combines the best of the extreme nature of wakeboarding without the need for (or expense of) a boat. Cable is an enormously valuable and important element of the entire sport of wakeboarding.
Now to the retraction notice for “Cable wakeboarding, a new trendy sport: analysis of injuries with regard to injury prevention,” published online in the Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports online in 2010: Continue reading Oh, snap: Cable wakeboarding injury paper falls to duplication
We’ve been covering the case of Alirio Melendez, three of whose papers have been retracted amidst questions about almost 70 studies. The latest development is a correction in the Journal of Cellular Physiology, which has already retracted one of his papers, of a study on which he was a co-author.
Here’s the correction for “Short dysfunctional telomeres impair the repair of arsenite-induced oxidative damage in mouse cells”: Continue reading A correction for Alirio Melendez, in Journal of Cellular Physiology
The Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied Biomaterials is retracting a 2010 paper by Turkish dental researchers for “unattributed overlap.”
We’re pretty sure that’s a euphemism for plagiarism we haven’t heard before — and it raises the question, could you have acceptable, attributed overlap?
The study has been cited three times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge, including by the retraction notice: Continue reading Dental paper pulled for “unattributed overlap”