The former director of the X-ray crystallography lab at the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, part of the National Institutes of Health, faked findings in three papers, according to the Office of Research Integrity.
Two of the three papers by Bijan Ahvazi were published in 2004, and later retracted in 2007, while the other was rejected: Continue reading Former NIH lab director faked findings in three papers: ORI
A dentistry journal has retracted a paper after discovering the research was lifted from dissertation work by two people unrelated to the paper authors.
Here’s the notice for “Treatment of mandibular angle fracture with a 2 mm, 3-dimensional rectangular grid compression miniplates: A prospective clinical study“: Continue reading What was behind an oddly-worded dental retraction? The authors stole someone’s thesis
Elsevier journal Chemosphere may finally retract a paper it learned contained fabricated data in January when a member of the author’s institution requested the paper be retracted.
The paper has been cited at least once since the lies came to light, as we reported earlier this month.
The journal contacted the relevant parties on October 29 with the following email about “Degradation of 2,4-dinitroanisole (DNAN) by metabolic cooperative activity of Pseudomonas sp. strain FK357andRhodococcus imtechensis strain RKJ300,” although no notice has been posted: Continue reading Will journal finally retract fraudulent paper 10 months after an official request?
A mistake in structure identification has sunk a paper by researchers at the NIH, MIT, and Seoul National University in the Cell Press journal Chemistry and Biology.
Here’s the notice for “Peptide-Based Inhibitors of Plk1 Polo-box Domain Containing Mono-anionic Phosphothreonine Esters and Their Pivaloyloxymethyl Prodrugs”: Continue reading Structure error sinks NIH-MIT-SNU peptide paper
Update, 4 p.m. EST, 10/29/14: As a commenter points out, we didn’t quite get this one right. The Boldt paper that has been retracted was not previously retracted for lack of IRB approval. Rather, it was a heretofore unretracted article, from 1996, which German investigators have determined contained faked data. We’ve made edits below using strikethroughs, and have changed the headline to better reflect the content. We apologize for the errors.
We’ve commented before on the fact that we’ve noticed there’s often more to retractions whose stated reason is lack of institutional review board (IRB) approval. We can understand editors’ inclination to act as quickly as possible to issue a retraction, the scientific publishing equivalent of jailing Al Capone for tax evasion. But we appreciate it even more when said editors return to the scene of the crime, as it were, when new important details come out.
Case in point: Anesthesia & Analgesia has amended its retraction of a 2009 1996 study by Joachim Boldt — who with nearly 90 retractions once held the record in that department — based on findings that the data in that paper were fabricated.
The article was titled “Cardiopulmonary bypass priming using a high dose of a balanced hydroxyethyl starch versus an albumin-based priming strategy,” “The effects of albumin versus hydroxyethyl starch solution on cardiorespiratory and circulatory variables in critically ill patient.” had previously been retracted because Boldt had failed to obtain adequate ethics approval for the research. But now comes this, According to the retraction notice from editor in chief Steven Shafer: Continue reading Boldt’s data were fake in 1996 paper
The authors of two spectroscopy papers in Royal Society of Chemistry journals have retracted them.
Here’s the notice for “Determination of silk fibroin secondary structure by terahertz time domain spectroscopy” (free, but requires sign-in) in Analytical Methods, which is almost identical to this notice in Analyst: Continue reading Authors retract two spectroscopy papers when follow-up results don’t match
A math paper in the Journal of Inequalities and Applications has been retracted after it was discovered the authors had included a student’s work without acknowledging her.
One of the authors, however, told us it was an honest mistake, and that the editor pushed for retraction instead of correction “to protect this journal and its impact factor.”
Here’s the notice for “On the Kirchhoff matrix, a new Kirchhoff index and the Kirchhoff energy”: Continue reading Student denied credit, math article retracted
A paper on photonic quantum walks has been retracted over a theoretical disagreement.
The notice is also paywalled, which the editorial director has assured us is a mistake that is being corrected.
We sent the COPE guidelines on retraction to the American Physical Society, which publishes Physical Review Letters. Editorial director Dan Kulp told us the paywall was the unintentional consequence of a web redesign, and that they are in the process of restoring public access to “all Errata-types, including Retractions.”
Here’s the rest of his statement: Continue reading Quantum physics paper pulled for “serious theoretical errors,” notice accidentally paywalled
This one’s not a retraction, but rather a back and forth of letters to the editor concerning accusations of plagiarism.
Dentists Bryan and Paul Jacobs, a father and son team, wrote a paper describing a novel surgical technique in March 2013. In October 2013, several Croatian dentists published their own paper using the technique.
A year later, the story has gotten a little more interesting. The November issue of the Journal of Oral and Mixillofacial Surgery, which published the second article, has two letters. One, from the Jacobses, accuses the Croatian authors of plagiarism. The second is a response from author Dragana Gabrić Pandurić, claiming “our real intention was to emphasize, not plagiarize, their work.”
Here’s the letter from Bryan and Paul Jacobs (paywalled): Continue reading “Our real intention was to emphasize, not plagiarize”
A cardiovascular group has retracted a conference proceeding abstract, because it too closely resembled a paper they published prior to the conference.
The last author is baffled as to why the journal couldn’t have made that call before they published the abstract.
Here’s the notice for “Increased beta-adrenergic inotropy in ventricular myocardium from Trpm4 knockout mice”: Continue reading Heart paper will go on, but only in the first of two journals it was published in
