Category: springer retractions

Journal: Here’s why we didn’t retract this duplicated paper

Here’s something we don’t see every day: A journal explains in an erratum notice why it chose not to retract a paper that contains data published elsewhere.

According to the Journal of Business and Psychology, the authors violated the journal’s transparency policy by failing to disclose that they’d used the same data in their 2014 in three others. However, the editors ultimately concluded the current paper was different enough from the other three to save it from being retracted.

Here’s the erratum: Continue reading Journal: Here’s why we didn’t retract this duplicated paper

Top physicist loses another paper; tally now up to 7

A physics journal has retracted a paper from a leading physicist in India over duplication.

The paper’s first and corresponding Naba K. Sahoo has had six papers retracted for the same reason — four earlier this year and two last year.

The new retraction brings Sahoo’s total to seven, by our count.

The duplication allegations began several years ago, after Sahoo’s colleagues at Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), part of Indian government’s Department of Atomic Energy, accused him of plagiarizing his own work.

Thomas Lippert, editor-in chief of Applied Physics A: Material Science & Processing, told us: Continue reading Top physicist loses another paper; tally now up to 7

Peer review in 2030: New report hopes it’s faster, more transparent, and more diverse

Elizabeth Moylan
Rachel Burley

Over the decades, the concept of peer review has changed dramatically – so what does the future hold? That’s a question examined in a new report issued today by BioMed Central and Digital Science, based on discussions held during the SpotOn London conference. (Disclosure: Our co-founder Ivan Oransky spoke there.) We spoke with Elizabeth Moylan, Senior Editor Research Integrity at BioMed Central, and Rachel Burley, Publishing Director at BioMed Central about the central question posed by the report: What will peer review look like in the year 2030?

Retraction Watch: People have many complaints about peer review. What do you think are its most pressing flaws?

Continue reading Peer review in 2030: New report hopes it’s faster, more transparent, and more diverse

A shadow was cast on a bone researcher’s work. What are journals doing about his papers?

Last year, a researcher cast doubt on a bone scientist’s clinical trials, suggesting some of the findings may not be legitimate. So what’s happened since?

Since 2015, journals have retracted 14 papers by bone researcher Yoshihiro Sato, based at Mitate Hospital in Japan, for issues ranging from self-plagiarism, to problems with data, to including co-authors without their consent. (We covered the latest two retractions this week.) Last year’s analysis identified patterns in more than 30 of Sato’s clinical trials that suggest systematic problems with the results. (Sato has defended his research.)

With doubts cast on Sato’s body of work, we contacted the journals that have published his papers involving human trials, to see if any taken another look at Sato’s work; several responded. While most believe there is little reason to take further action at this time, some told us they are investigating.
Continue reading A shadow was cast on a bone researcher’s work. What are journals doing about his papers?

Plant biologist earns string of retractions, bringing total to 9

A pair of plant biologists has lost a string of papers over concerns about image manipulation. One author has added eight new retractions to his CV; the other has added five.

Last summer, a journal retracted another paper by the pair, also citing suspicions of image manipulation. The latest batch of retractions — issued by seven different journals — includes some papers that have been questioned on PubPeer.

Dibyendu Talukdar, listed at the University of Calcutta in West Bengal, India, is the sole author on three retracted papers. He shares five new retractions with Tulika Talukdar listed at the University of North Bengal. That brings their totals to nine and six, respectively. (We’re not sure if the Drs. Talukdar are related).

We’ll start with the papers they share: Continue reading Plant biologist earns string of retractions, bringing total to 9

A new record: Major publisher retracting more than 100 studies from cancer journal over fake peer reviews

Springer is retracting 107 papers from one journal after discovering they had been accepted with fake peer reviews. Yes, 107.

To submit a fake review, someone (often the author of a paper) either makes up an outside expert to review the paper, or suggests a real researcher — and in both cases, provides a fake email address that comes back to someone who will invariably give the paper a glowing review. In this case, Springer, the publisher of Tumor Biology through 2016, told us that an investigation produced “clear evidence” the reviews were submitted under the names of real researchers with faked emails. Some of the authors may have used a third-party editing service, which may have supplied the reviews. The journal is now published by SAGE.

The retractions follow another sweep by the publisher last year, when Tumor Biology retracted 25 papers for compromised review and other issues, mostly authored by researchers based in Iran. With the latest bunch of retractions, the journal has now retracted the most papers of any other journal indexed by Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science, formerly part of Thomson Reuters. In 2015, its impact factor — 2.9 — ranked it 104th out of 213 oncology journals.

Here’s more from Springer’s official statement, out today:

Continue reading A new record: Major publisher retracting more than 100 studies from cancer journal over fake peer reviews

Fraud by bone researcher takes down two meta-analyses, a clinical trial, and review

The troubles continue for a bone researcher, who’s lost multiple papers in recent months due to problems ranging from data issues to including authors without their consent.

Now, journals have retracted two more papers by Yoshihiro Sato. And in a sign of the downstream effects that fraud can have, another journal has retracted two meta-analyses by other authors that cited his work.

Earlier this month, the journal Current Medical Research and Opinion retracted the two meta-analyses because they were based on recently retracted papers by Sato, affiliated with Mitate Hospital. The two new retractions of Sato’s papers are a review and a randomized controlled trial.

Sato was not an author on the meta-analyses published in 2008 and 2011; he was, however, first and lead author on all the retracted papers referenced in the notices. The notices state that the trio of authors on the meta-analyses:

Continue reading Fraud by bone researcher takes down two meta-analyses, a clinical trial, and review

Author surprised when publisher pulls three of her papers

A researcher is strongly objecting to a publisher’s decision to retract three of her papers from two computing journals without informing her first.

The reason: Self-plagiarism, which the author said stemmed from her PhD student using similar descriptions for the background sections of the papers. She argued that if the reviewers had flagged the duplication, she would have been happy to revise the papers before publication. A representative of the publisher, Springer, told us the overlap was extensive enough for the journal to determine the papers should be retracted.

We spoke with Sameem Abdul Kareem from the Department Of Artificial Intelligence at the University of Malaya in Malaysia, last author on all three papers, which she co-authored with her former PhD student Haitham Badi (also referred to as Haitham Hasan in several papers). She explained how the duplication occurred:

Continue reading Author surprised when publisher pulls three of her papers

Most citations to retracted papers don’t note they’re problematic, authors say

Gali Halevi

We’ve known for a while that too many researchers cite retracted papers. But in what context do those citations occur? Are some authors citing a retracted paper as an example of problematic findings, or do most citing authors treat the findings as legitimate, failing to realize they are no longer valid? In a new paper in Scientometrics, Gali Halevi at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York and Judit Bar-Ilan at Bar-Ilan University in Israel examined citations to 15 papers retracted in 2014. Halevi told us why she was surprised to see how many authors don’t realize retracted papers are problematic, and what the publishing community can do to get the word out.

Retraction Watch: We’ve noticed that many papers are cited long after being retracted, without notifying readers the paper is problematic. You looked at citations to retracted papers and tracked how the citing authors described the paper – noting that its findings were problematic given the retraction (negative), or treating the findings as legitimate research that affirms the newer paper’s results (positive). The vast majority of post-retraction citations – 83% — were positive. Did that surprise you?

Continue reading Most citations to retracted papers don’t note they’re problematic, authors say

Prominent NIH researcher up to a dozen retractions

Stanley Rapoport. Source: NIH

Neuroscientist Stanley Rapoport hasn’t had much luck with his co-authors.

Recently, we’ve reported on multiple retractions of papers co-authored by Rapoport after three different first authors were found to have committed misconduct. Now, the fallout from one of those cases had led to four more retractions, bringing Rapoport’s total to 12.

The latest batch of retractions stem from the actions of Jagadeesh Rao.

Here’s the first notice, issued by Psychopharmacology:

Continue reading Prominent NIH researcher up to a dozen retractions