Category: springer retractions

Second retraction for Czech fraudster Bezouska, who broke into lab

bmc biotechEarlier this month we wrote about the retraction by Nature of a 19-year-old paper by Karel Bezouska, a former star researcher at Prague’s Charles University whose “dangerous and irresponsible deviations” from acceptable practice went as far as tampering with refrigerated samples to cover his tracks.

BMC Biotechnology has retracted another Bezouska paper, this one from 2011. He’s the second author on the article, titled “Heterologous expression, purification and characterization of nitrilase from Aspergillus niger K10.”

Continue reading Second retraction for Czech fraudster Bezouska, who broke into lab

Gravity paper yanked for plagiarism by another name

jtapcoverThe Journal of Theoretical and Applied Physics has retracted a 2012 paper by a pair of Iranian cosmologists who failed to adequately cite one of the critical references on which they based their work.

We think that falls under the broader category of plagiarism — after all, as Heisenberg famously postulated, the same text cannot simultaneously appear in two published articles under different authorship. Or something like that.

The paper in question, “Torsion of space-time in f (R) gravity,” deals with, as this Wikipedia entry states: Continue reading Gravity paper yanked for plagiarism by another name

Retractions arrive for former Wash U neuroscience grad student found to have committed misconduct

Adam Savine
Adam Savine

Two studies by Adam Savine, the former Washington University neuroscience graduate student found by the Office of Research Integrity to have falsified data, have been retracted.

Here’s the notice for one: Continue reading Retractions arrive for former Wash U neuroscience grad student found to have committed misconduct

Come again? “Penile Strangulation by Metallic Rings” retracted for duplication

indjrnsurgThe Indian Journal of Surgery, a Springer-Verlag title, has retracted a 2011 paper with a title only the Marquis de Sade would love: “Penile Strangulation by Metallic Rings.”

We know what you’re saying: Who knew penises could be strangulated? Well, it’s true.

Continue reading Come again? “Penile Strangulation by Metallic Rings” retracted for duplication

See one, do one, copy one? E-learning paper retracted for plagiarism

hccisHuman-centric Computing and Information Sciences is retracting a 2012 paper on a “model approach” to e-learning that well, was anything but a model approach to scientific publishing.

The article, “Implications of E-learning systems and self-efficiency on students outcomes: a model approach,” was written by Tanzila Saba, who has been affiliated with institutions in Malaysia and Pakistan.

According to the retraction notice: Continue reading See one, do one, copy one? E-learning paper retracted for plagiarism

Double submission leads to retraction of probability paper — and a publishing ban

jtbWhat are the chances of successfully duplicating publication in the Journal of Theoretical Probability? Not too high, it seems.

A pair of South Korean authors have gotten a five-year ban from the journal for double-publishing a paper in the math literature.

The article, “Convergence of Weighted Sums for Arrays of Negatively Dependent Random Variables and Its Applications,” was written by Jong-Il Baek and Sung-Tae Park of Wonkwang University in IkSan.

According to the retraction notice: Continue reading Double submission leads to retraction of probability paper — and a publishing ban

Lost from translation(al) medicine: Publisher error leads to retraction

jrntransmedA technical hiccup led the Journal of Translational Medicine to double publish a 2012 paper by a pair of researchers from China and the United States, leading to a retraction.

The article is/was titled “Opportunities and challenges of disease biomarkers: a new section in the journal of translational medicine,” and it was written by Xiangdong Wang and Peter Ward — both members of the journal’s editorial board. It appeared in the Nov. 7, 2012 issue of the JTM. And it appeared less than a month later, on Dec. 5.

Continue reading Lost from translation(al) medicine: Publisher error leads to retraction

A regretful retraction for plagiarism and duplication in Proteome Science

proteomescilogoApologies, mea culpas, regrets. Kids, let this be a warning to you: Don’t plagiarize. You will get caught, and you’ll have to come clean.

Just ask a group of Spanish researchers who published a 2011 paper in Proteome Science, then lost it this past April because they’d stolen text and a figure from previously published work — some, but not all of it, their own.

The retraction notice for “Clinical and technical phosphoproteomic research” tells the story: Continue reading A regretful retraction for plagiarism and duplication in Proteome Science

“Missing link” fungus-like organisms still missing as paper is retracted

proteincellThe journal Protein & Cell has retracted a 2012 paper on fungi-like organisms that took a step in the direction of proper citation — but didn’t quite get there.

The article, “Cryptomycota: the missing link,” came from Krishna Bolla and Elizabeth Jane Ashforth, who are affiliated with Key Laboratory of Pathogenic Microbiology at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Bejing.

But as the retraction notice explains, Bolla wasn’t careful enough about good publishing hygiene: Continue reading “Missing link” fungus-like organisms still missing as paper is retracted

A double-bill from Digestive Diseases and Sciences, both for regurgitation — aka duplication

ddsComing back up?

Digestive Diseases and Sciences has retracted two papers for duplication.

The first paper, “Membrane-Bound Mucins and Mucin Terminal Glycans Expression in Idiopathic or Helicobacter pylori, NSAID Associated Peptic Ulcers,” was published in October 2012 by a group from Israel and the United States. It found that:

Cytoplasmic MUC17 staining was significantly decreased in the cases with idiopathic ulcer. The opposite was demonstrated for MUC1. This observation might be important, since different mucins with altered sialylation patterns likely differ in their protection efficiency against acid and pepsin.

But, as the retraction notice suggests, that much had been found before: Continue reading A double-bill from Digestive Diseases and Sciences, both for regurgitation — aka duplication