Category: taylor and francis

Identity theft: Psych journal retracts paper on gay sex for plagiarism

identityIdentity, which bills itself as “An International Journal of Theory and Research,” has retracted a 2013 article by an Italian researcher who stole the work from another author, then published it twice.

The paper, “Behind the mask: A typology of men cruising for same-sex act,” was ostensibly written by Stefano Ramello, an “independent researcher explores the interactions between space, erotic practices, identity, gender and sexuality.” But as the retraction notice explains, Ramello appears simply to have thrown his own name on top of an earlier paper.

Continue reading Identity theft: Psych journal retracts paper on gay sex for plagiarism

Double-dipping leads to removal of petroleum research paper

pst journalcoverIranian scientists have lost one of two articles they submitted — and published — simultaneously to different journals. Watch as confusion ensues.

The retracted paper, “Permeability Estimation of a Reservoir Based on Neural Networks Coupled with Genetic Algorithms,” appeared online in August 2011  in Petroleum Science and Technology, a Taylor & Francis journal. According to the liner notes, the paper had been received on January 15, 2010 and accepted a few weeks later. It has been cited once since, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge, by its authors, in a paper published in the same journal.

Meanwhile, in August 2011 the authors (minus one name) also published “Evolving neural network using real coded genetic algorithm for permeability estimation of the reservoir,”  in Expert Systems With Applications, an Elsevier title.

The standing paper — which has been cited seven times — now carries the following erratum notice (dated far into the future, September 2013): Continue reading Double-dipping leads to removal of petroleum research paper

Editor on retraction details: “I do not think this is the business of anyone but our journal, please”

early education developmentWhose business are the reasons behind a retraction?

Our readers will no doubt know by now that we think they’re basically everyone’s — at least if journals want us to believe that they’re interested in maintaining the integrity of the scientific record. But not all editors seem to agree. Hank Edmunds, for example, didn’t in early 2011, telling us, “It’s none of your damn business.” A chemistry journal editor said, in a similar vein, “the purpose of keeping these retraction notices slim is not to produce too much detail.”

Now, a psychology journal editor joins those ranks. Here’s the notice in question: Continue reading Editor on retraction details: “I do not think this is the business of anyone but our journal, please”

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

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

Stapel watch reaches 45 retractions

stapel_npcKeeping up with the retraction count of Diederik Stapel is proving to be a, well, staple of this job. Four more retractions brings the figure to 45.

The articles in question are: Continue reading Stapel watch reaches 45 retractions

Does “the computer ate my homework” explain retraction of higher ed paper?

ijpacoverWe’ve seen papers retracted for lots of reasons, but this is a new one.

A researcher at the University of Ruhuna in Sri Lanka has been forced to retract a paper in the International Journal of Public Administration after evidently failing to properly install the computer software used to process the data.

Here’s the retraction notice for the 2010 article, by Chamil Rathnayake: Continue reading Does “the computer ate my homework” explain retraction of higher ed paper?

Paper on “evidence for environmental racism” in EPA polluter fines retracted for coding error

nat resources coverA coding switcharoo caused a paper Society & Natural Resources to be retracted. But the authors say that not all is lost, since correcting the data gave them a better understanding of how the the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency fines companies that pollute in poor and minority neighborhoods.

The retraction notice reads: Continue reading Paper on “evidence for environmental racism” in EPA polluter fines retracted for coding error

Lemus, Stapel each rack up another retraction

The retraction counts keep mounting for two Retraction Watch frequent flyers.

First, Diederik Stapel’s 26th retraction, according to our count. Psychologist Stapel admitted to making up data in dozens of studies, and is also facing a criminal inquiry for misuse of funds.

Here’s the notice: Continue reading Lemus, Stapel each rack up another retraction