Category: not reproducible

Three retractions, two lawsuits, one institutional inquiry for San Diego orthopedic surgeon

11832_5_2_OC.inddThree 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

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

“Major error” forces retraction of ghrelin study

Try as we may, we can’t cover every retraction in real time. But on the principle that late is better than later, here’s one from 2012 that we’ve been meaning to get to.

neuroreportThe journal NeuroReport has retracted a 2011 article by a group of researchers who evidently discovered a fatal flaw in one of their figures.

The article, “Ghrelin prevents neuronal apoptosis and cognitive impairments in sepsis-associated encephalopathy,” by a team of intensivists from Zhejiang University in Hangzhou, China, purported to find that ghrelin, which stimulates appetite, appeared to have something of a protective effect against the ravages of sepsis in rat brains. It has been cited three times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge, including once by the retraction.

As the abstract stated: Continue reading “Major error” forces retraction of ghrelin study

Time for a scientific journal Reproducibility Index

labtimes july 2013Retraction Watch readers are by now more than likely familiar with the growing concerns over reproducibility in science. In response to issues in fields from cancer research to psychology, scientists have come up with programs such as the Reproducibility Initiative and the Open Science Framework.

These sorts of efforts are important experiments in ensuring that findings are robust. We think there’s another potential way to encourage reproducibility: Giving journals an incentive to publish results that hold up.

As we write in our latest LabTimes column, we have already called for a Transparency Index Continue reading Time for a scientific journal Reproducibility Index

Retraction of 19-year-old Nature paper reveals hidden cameras, lab break-in, evidence tampering

nature bezouskaWe’ve often found that when some authors refuse to sign retraction notices, there’s a much bigger story than terse notices let on. And a retraction in this week’s Nature of a 19-year-old paper is a shining example of that.

Here’s the brief notice for “Oligosaccharide ligands for NKR-P1 protein activate NK cells and cytotoxicity,” a 1994 paper by researchers from the UK and the Czech Republic that had already been subject to a 1996 correction: Continue reading Retraction of 19-year-old Nature paper reveals hidden cameras, lab break-in, evidence tampering

Former Duke researcher charged with embezzlement has a paper retracted

j app physA new retraction notice in the Journal of Applied Physiology gives only a hint at the problems in the paper, but what it does say has led us to a story about one of its co-authors.

Here’s the notice, from a team at Duke: Continue reading Former Duke researcher charged with embezzlement has a paper retracted

Why I retracted my Nature paper: A guest post from David Vaux about correcting the scientific record

Last month, Ivan met David Vaux at the 3rd World Conference on Research Integrity in Montreal. David mentioned a retraction he published in Nature, and we thought it would be a great guest post on what it’s like to retract one of your own papers in an attempt to clean up the literature.

vaux
David Vaux

In September 1995 Nature asked me to review a manuscript by Bellgrau and co-workers, which subsequently appeared. I was very excited by this paper, as it showed that expression of CD95L on Sertoli cells in allogeneic mismatched testes tissue transplanted under the kidney capsule was able to induce apoptosis of invading cytotoxic T cells, thereby preventing rejection. As I wrote in a News and Views piece, the implications of these findings were enormous – grafts engineered to express CD95L would be able to prevent rejection without generalized immunosuppression.

In fact, I was so taken by these findings that we started generation of transgenic mice that expressed CD95L on their islet beta cells to see if it would allow islet cell grafts to avoid rejection and provide a cure for diabetes in mismatched recipients.

Little did we know that instead of providing an answer to transplant rejection, these experiments would teach us a great deal about editorial practices and the difficulty of correcting errors once they appear in the literature. Continue reading Why I retracted my Nature paper: A guest post from David Vaux about correcting the scientific record

Quorum sensing paper retracted when new study suggests compounds weren’t what they seemed

plos oneThe authors of a paper on quorum sensing — in simple terms, how bacteria “talk” to one another — have retracted it after another group’s findings led them to discover that the mixture they used weren’t what they thought.

The refreshingly detailed retraction notice in PLOS ONE explains: Continue reading Quorum sensing paper retracted when new study suggests compounds weren’t what they seemed

Tenth retraction appears for Jesús Lemus, this one in PLOS ONE

plos oneJust two days ago, we covered the ninth retraction for Jesús Lemus, “the veterinary researcher whose work colleagues have had trouble verifying, including being unable to confirm the identity of one of his co-authors.” And already another of his retractions has appeared in one of our daily alerts.

This one appears in PLOS ONE, for “Infectious Offspring: How Birds Acquire and Transmit an Avian Polyomavirus in the Wild:” Continue reading Tenth retraction appears for Jesús Lemus, this one in PLOS ONE

Doing the right thing: Psychology researchers retract after realizing data “were not analyzed properly”

cerebral cortexAmid an ongoing investigation, a group of psychology researchers at the University of Leuven (KU Leuven) in Belgium have taken a painful decision to retract a paper now that they’ve realized there were serious problems with one aspect of the work.

Here’s the notice for “The Emergence of Orthographic Word Representations in the Brain: Evaluating a Neural Shape-Based Framework Using fMRI and the HMAX Model,” by Wouter Braet, Jonas Kubilius, Johan Wagemans, and Hans P. Op de Beeck: Continue reading Doing the right thing: Psychology researchers retract after realizing data “were not analyzed properly”