by reason for retraction – Page 185

Surgery studies lacked ethics committee approval

Surgery Today has pulled a pair of papers that share many authors because the studies they describe were not approved by an institutional ethics committee.

One describes a case in which the researchers removed a mass from a 64-year-old woman’s small intestine; the other describes how the authors removed a growth from a patient’s pancreas. They conclude that the surgery techniques used — like a laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy, a take on the “Whipple Procedure” — can be “feasible, safe, and effective” in certain patients.

The papers share several authors, including a first author, Akihiro Cho, whose affiliation on the papers is Chiba Cancer Center Hospital in Japan. They also share a retraction note, which explains how the journal learned of the issue:

Continue reading Surgery studies lacked ethics committee approval

Upon discovering several errors, authors retract gastric cancer paper

After finding several errors in their paper about the molecular activity underlying gastric cancer, the authors unanimously decided to retract it.

According to the retraction note, three figures in the paper had β‑actin bands that were omitted, interchanged, or both.

The retraction note provides the details:

Continue reading Upon discovering several errors, authors retract gastric cancer paper

Journals flag 6 papers, request investigation of New Jersey university biologists

Two journals have published six expressions of concern for a pair of biologists at Rowan University, and are asking the university to undertake an investigation.

We contacted the editors of the two journals — Journal of Cell Science and Biology Open — who both said they decided to flag the papers after a reader raised concerns about potential re-use of blot images. The six papers are co-authored by John G. Pastorino, a molecular biologist at Rowan University in New Jersey and Nataly Shulga, whose LinkedIn identifies her as a research specialist at the same institution. According to the nearly identical notes, the journals (which share a publisher) undertook a review of the original data, but “felt unable to resolve this matter.”

The expressions of concern — five from the Journal of Cell Science and one from Biology Open — include pretty much the same text. Here’s the note that appeared in JCS:

Continue reading Journals flag 6 papers, request investigation of New Jersey university biologists

STAP stem cell researcher Obokata loses another paper

The first author of two high-profile Nature retractions about a technique to easily create stem cells has lost another paper in Nature Protocols.

Haruko Obokata, once “a lab director’s dream,” according to The New Yorker, also had her PhD revoked from Waseda University last fall.

After learning of concerns that two figures are “very similar” and “some of the error bars look unevenly positioned,” the rest of the authors were unable to locate the raw data, according to the note. The journal could not reach Obokata for comment before publishing the retraction.

“Reproducible subcutaneous transplantation of cell sheets into recipient mice” has been cited 21 times, according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science. It was published in June 2011, soon after Obokata earned her PhD.

Here’s the note:

Continue reading STAP stem cell researcher Obokata loses another paper

Top journals give mixed response to learning published trials didn’t proceed as planned

Ben Goldacre has been a busy man. In the last six weeks, the author and medical doctor’s Compare Project has evaluated 67 clinical trials published in the top five medical journals, looking for any “switched outcomes,” meaning the authors didn’t report something they said they would, or included additional outcomes in the published paper, with no explanation for the change. The vast majority – 58 – included such discrepancies. Goldacre talked to us about how journals – New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), JAMA, The Lancet, BMJ, and Annals of Internal Medicine — have responded to this feedback.

Retraction Watch: When you discover a published trial has switched outcomes, what do you do? Continue reading Top journals give mixed response to learning published trials didn’t proceed as planned

Cyberterrorism paper under attack for plagiarizing from multiple sources

A paper about combating cyberterrorism is coming under fire after allegations of plagiarism sparked on social media.

Soon after the paper was published by the journal Computer Technology and Application in 2015, Orgnet LLC, a network analysis software company, announced on Twitter that the paper took content from its webpage. The firm tweeted: Continue reading Cyberterrorism paper under attack for plagiarizing from multiple sources

Sweden, rocked by scientific scandals, re-thinking how it investigates misconduct

The Swedish government is taking a second look at how it handles misconduct investigations.

According to a spokesperson:

Yes, we have an national investigation ongoing since last autumn. It will investigate how misconduct is investigated and handled in Sweden…

She also sent us a link to a description of the investigation, in Swedish. The outcome of the investigation is expected in November, 2016.

The inquiry predates the media implosion that’s taken place in recent months over the Karolinska Institutet’s (KI) investigation of surgeon Paolo Macchiarini, who transplanted tracheas seeded with patients’ own stem cells. Continue reading Sweden, rocked by scientific scandals, re-thinking how it investigates misconduct

“That was a really bad Friday for us:” WIRED warns four stories were plagiarized

Last Friday, WIRED editor Adam Rogers got a direct message on Twitter that no journalist wants to see. Christina Larson, a freelance writer in China, told him she had seen overlap with her own work in a few WIRED stories, and included links to the relevant pieces.

“She was gracious, just asking for a link back in the future, said she loved WIRED,” Rogers told Retraction Watch by phone this afternoon. It was early morning in San Francisco, so Rogers thanked her for bringing the issue to his attention, and said he’d look at it more closely when he arrived at his desk some 45 minutes later.

It was the start of an episode that would lead to the dismissal of a WIRED reporter, and the addition of warning notes to four of the publication’s stories.
Continue reading “That was a really bad Friday for us:” WIRED warns four stories were plagiarized

Doctor suspended in UK after faking co-authors, data

A doctor in Manchester, UK has received a year’s suspension by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service.

Gemina Doolub admitted that she fabricated research data and submitted papers without the knowledge of her co-authors, including faking an email address for a co-author, a news story in the BMJ reports. The research in question was part of two retractions that Doolub received in 2013, one of which we covered at the time.

Doolub’s research examined ways to treat and avoid microvascular obstruction — that is, blocked arteries. Doolub did the work while at Oxford.

“Intracoronary Adenosine versus Intravenous Adenosine during Primary PCI for ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Which One Offers Better Outcomes in terms of Microvascular Obstruction?” was published in International Scholarly Research Notices Cardiology and has not yet been cited, according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science.

As the BMJ reports, in that paper,

Continue reading Doctor suspended in UK after faking co-authors, data

Don’t trust an image in a scientific paper? Manipulation detective’s company wants to help.

Mike Rossner has made a name for himself in academic publishing as somewhat of a “manipulation detective.” As the editor of The Journal of Cell Biology, in 2002 he initiated a policy of screening all images in accepted manuscripts, causing the journal to reject roughly 1% of papers that had already passed peer review. Other journals now screen images, but finding manipulation is only the first step – handling it responsibly is another matter. Rossner has started his own company to help journals and institutions manage this tricky process. We talked to him about his new venture.

Retraction Watch: What are the primary services offered by your company?

Continue reading Don’t trust an image in a scientific paper? Manipulation detective’s company wants to help.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: