Category: not reproducible

Inquiry at Maimonides triggers two retractions in Chest, and retraining for the researchers

The journal Chest has retracted two publications — a paper and an earlier meeting abstract — from a group of researchers at Maimonides Medical Center in New York City after learning that the investigators mischaracterized the nature of their study. In addition to losing the two publications, the authors were ordered to undergo a refresher in proper research methods.

Here’s the notice for the abstract, which has been cited once, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge: Continue reading Inquiry at Maimonides triggers two retractions in Chest, and retraining for the researchers

Flawed model leads to retraction of polymer paper

The International Journal of Impact Engineering has a highly technical retraction of an article whose authors discovered that crucial findings relied on a model that was different from the one they reported using in a particular figure.

The article, “Dynamic behavior of polymers at high strain-rates based on split Hopkinson pressure bar tests,” was published online last November by a pair of researchers from the U.K. and China. As the notice states:

Continue reading Flawed model leads to retraction of polymer paper

Three AHA journals retract lipid papers over “negligent” record-keeping, image issues and more

Three journals belonging to the American Heart Association are dealing with a data manipulation case involving a Japanese scientist who collaborated with some of the United States’ most prominent  cardiac specialists.

Circulation has retracted a 2008 article after the researchers said the lead author’s sloppy record-keeping prevented them from reproducing their experiments. We think there might be a bit more to the story.

Here’s the notice: Continue reading Three AHA journals retract lipid papers over “negligent” record-keeping, image issues and more

Two mega-corrections for Anil Potti in the Journal of Clinical Oncology

Anil Potti can add two corrections to his less-and-less impressive publication record. The mega-corrections — part of what we are close to being ready to call a trend in errata notices — in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO) are, however, quite impressive, each with at least a dozen points.

One of the corrections, for a paper cited 15 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge, basically removes all references to chemotherapy sensitivity: Continue reading Two mega-corrections for Anil Potti in the Journal of Clinical Oncology

Anil Potti and colleagues retract ninth paper, this one in JCO

Former Duke oncology researcher Anil Potti has retracted another paper, marking his ninth withdrawal. The notice in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO) reads:

“An Integrated Genomic-Based Approach to Individualized Treatment of Patients With Advanced-Stage Ovarian Cancer” by Holly K. Dressman, Andrew Berchuck, Gina Chan, Jun Zhai, Andrea Bild, Robyn Sayer, Janiel Cragun, Jennifer Clarke, Regina S. Whitaker, LiHua Li, Jonathan Gray, Jeffrey Marks, Geoffrey S. Ginsburg, Anil Potti, Mike West, Joseph R. Nevins, and Johnathan M. Lancaster (J Clin Oncol 25:517-525, 2007)

The majority of the authors wish to retract this article because Continue reading Anil Potti and colleagues retract ninth paper, this one in JCO

Errors force retraction of Blood paper on genetics of Hodgkin’s lymphoma

The authors of a paper published last September in Blood about alleged links between certain genes and Hodgkin’s lymphoma have retracted it, after realizing they’d made mistakes in their calculations.

The retraction notice for “Multiple HLA class I and II associations in classical Hodgkin lymphoma and EBV status defined subgroups,” dated January 20 and signed by all of the authors, clearly explains what went wrong, taking pains to note that there was no misconduct involved: Continue reading Errors force retraction of Blood paper on genetics of Hodgkin’s lymphoma

PNAS retraction marks second for crystallography group

Two crystallographers who retracted a Structure paper last year have retracted a study about a similar subject in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, for similar reasons.

Here’s the notice for the paper, which has been cited 23 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge: Continue reading PNAS retraction marks second for crystallography group

Sebastiani and Perls longevity genes work finds a new home in PLoS ONE following Science retraction

via Wikimedia

Today, without us having planned it, has become the day of retracted papers that found a new home.

This morning, we posted an item about a chimp “culture” paper that was retracted from Biology Letters after its authors found some errors, and then published, with corrections, in the Journal of Human Evolution. This afternoon, we bring you the news of a PLoS ONE paper on longevity genes that is the corrected version of a Science paper retracted last year: Continue reading Sebastiani and Perls longevity genes work finds a new home in PLoS ONE following Science retraction

Chimp ‘culture’ paper retracted after authors spot errors, now has home at another journal

The authors of a 2011 paper claiming that chimp “culture” has more to do with local habitats than with where the chimps live have retracted it after finding mistakes in their work.

Here’s the notice for the paper, “Variation in chimpanzee ‘culture’ is predicted by local ecology, not geography:” Continue reading Chimp ‘culture’ paper retracted after authors spot errors, now has home at another journal

Your experiment didn’t work out? The Journal of Errology wants to hear from you

It’s no secret that it can be difficult to find negative results in the scientific literature. For a variety of reasons, positive publication bias is a real phenomenon. In clinical medicine, that can paint a more optimistic picture of a field than is actually the case. And in basic science, it can mean other scientists may repeat experiments that have already failed.

But the new Journal of Errology, yet to be launched, wants to be a home for experiments that didn’t work out. If it’s successful, it might mean a place where researchers could publish results that don’t look great, without feeling the need to make them look any better — a strategy that can lead to retractions.

BioFlukes, the journal’s Bangalore, India-based publishers, have ambitious goals, according to the company’s Mahboob Imtiyaz: Continue reading Your experiment didn’t work out? The Journal of Errology wants to hear from you