An honest error has prompted the first retraction of a paper published in F1000Research, a relatively new open science journal that publishes all articles before peer review and then solicits such review.
Here’s the notice: Continue reading Open science journal F1000Research posts its first retraction
Last week, we reported on a retraction in the Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry that left us a bit puzzled. The notice referred to a problem with “the way the data was presented,” but the authors told us this was just an error picked up in proofreading, somehow after the paper had been published online.
We now have much more of the story. The Royal Society of Chemistry’s May Copsey, who edits the journal, tells Retraction Watch: Continue reading Royal Society of Chemistry apologizes for unclear retraction notice
mBio, whose editor, Arturo Casadevall, has contributed greatly to our knowledge about why articles are retracted, has an interesting retraction of its own.
The journal — a publication of the American Society for Microbiology and the American Academy of Microbiology — is pulling a 2011 paper by a trio of researchers from the University of Alabama, Birmingham, Li Tan, Mei Li and Charles L. Turnbough Jr. The article was titled “An Unusual Mechanism of Isopeptide Bond Formation Attaches the Collagenlike Glycoprotein BclA to the Exosporium of Bacillus anthracis.” The paper, which has been cited twice, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web Knowledge, purported to show that:
Continue reading mBio retracts anthrax paper whose authors say they misinterpreted findings
A retraction in a chemistry journal has us scratching our heads. And we’re apparently not alone — the authors are scratching theirs, too.
Here’s the notice for “Achievement of 1.4 ng detection limit of cesium with TXRF spectrometer by changing the X-ray detector and reducing noise:” Continue reading Chemistry article retracted “due to the way data was presented”
In July, we reported on the unfortunate math of Harish Hosalkar, a San Diego orthopedic surgeon who was at the center of an institutional investigation into the integrity of his data, two lawsuits and three retractions.
At the time, we were waiting on the third retraction, in the journal Orthopedic Reviews. It has now arrived.
The article was titled “Open reduction and internal fixation of displaced clavicle fractures in adolescents,” and Hosalkar wrote it with Gaurav Parikh, James D. Bomar and Bernd Bittersohl. Continue reading Third retraction appears for orthopedic surgeon involved in investigation, lawsuits
The humble chickpea has become one of the world’s most promising cash crops, so it’s no surprise that efforts are underway to make it even more humble, er, profitable, through genetic manipulation.
But one group of scientists made hummus out of their approach when they botched what evidently was a key element of a figure in their 2011 paper in Plant Cell Reports (PCR).
The article, “High-efficiency Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and regeneration of insect-resistant transgenic plants,” came from researchers at the National Botanical Research Institute in Lucknow, India. Cited three times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge, it purported to find that: Continue reading Figure error forces retraction of transgenic chickpea paper
Three retractions, two lawsuits, one institutional inquiry. That’s not the kind of math anyone likes to do — but it’s the tally for Harish Hosalkar, a San Diego surgeon specializing in pediatric orthopedics.
Hosalkar became embroiled in a messy affair after problems surfaced in data he had published while at Rady Children’s Hospital — a facility he left under a cloud of recriminations. More on that in a bit. Continue reading Three retractions, two lawsuits, one institutional inquiry for San Diego orthopedic surgeon
Coding errors in a database maintained by Pfizer have led authors to retract two heart biomarker papers in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The two notices, for “Prediction of cardiovascular events in statin-treated patients by lipid and non-lipid biomarkers” and “Plasma PCSK9 levels and clinical outcomes in the TNT (Treating to New Targets) Trial,” are highly detailed and say the same thing: Continue reading Pfizer database errors cause two voluminous retractions for JACC statin-biomarker papers
A potential weight loss drug has been dealt what could be a serious setback after regulators found problems at two trial sites.
While awaiting a final report, The Lancet, which published a study of the drug, tesofensine, has issued an Expression of Concern: Continue reading Trial irregularities earn Lancet study of potential weight loss drug tesofensine Expression of Concern
Whose 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”