Category: by reason for retraction

U.S. senator appears to have plagiarized his master’s thesis

Sen. John Walsh
Sen. John Walsh

A Democratic senator from Montana, John Walsh, is the latest high-profile politician to face plagiarism charges.

The New York Times reports:

…one of the highest-profile credentials of Mr. Walsh’s 33-year military career appears to have been improperly attained. An examination of the final paper required for Mr. Walsh’s master’s degree from the United States Army War College indicates the senator appropriated at least a quarter of his thesis on American Middle East policy from other authors’ works, with no attribution.

In an infographic, the Times lays out the overlapping passages: Continue reading U.S. senator appears to have plagiarized his master’s thesis

Cardiology researcher who admitted to fraud earns four-year funding ban

dfg_logoA researcher who admitted in 2012 to “intentional and systematic manipulation” of data and had two papers retracted has been banned from funding by the German Research Foundation (DFG).

Dennis Rottländer, who will also be returning prize money he was awarded for the research, worked in Uta C. Hoppe’s lab at the University of Cologne. Hoppe, now at University Hospital Salzburg, remains under investigation, according to a statement from the DFG.

Excerpt: Continue reading Cardiology researcher who admitted to fraud earns four-year funding ban

Patient mix-up sinks prenatal supplement paper

This one seems like an honest mistake: a paper on dietary supplements during pregnancy has been retracted based on an error in data recording.

In the BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth paper, “Folic acid supplementation, dietary folate intake during pregnancy and risk for spontaneous preterm delivery: a prospective observational cohort study,” women for whom the researchers had no data on folic acid supplementation were classified as taking no supplements. Despite the error, the authors claim the overall conclusion remains the same: taking folic acid supplements didn’t protect women from preterm deliveries.

Here’s the retraction notice: Continue reading Patient mix-up sinks prenatal supplement paper

Duplication earns retraction for nanomaterials paper that had already been corrected

Applied_Physics_Letters_cover_imageAfter earning an erratum shortly after publication in 2009, a paper in Applied Physics Letters has now been retracted for the “regrettable mistake” of duplicating an earlier paper by the researchers.

Here’s the notice for “Broadband and omnidirectional antireflection from conductive indium-tin-oxide nanocolumns prepared by glancing-angle deposition with nitrogen:” Continue reading Duplication earns retraction for nanomaterials paper that had already been corrected

Yogurt to be kidding me: Five articles plagiarized in one retracted paper

After typing up 96 citations, researchers from the National Institute for Digestive Diseases, I.R.C.C.S. “S. de Bellis,” in Bari, Italy, apparently ran out of steam for the last five, earning themselves a retraction for plagiarism in a literature review of the effects of probiotics on intestinal cancer.

Here’s the notice for “Intestinal Microbiota, Probiotics and Human Gastrointestinal Cancers,” from the Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer: Continue reading Yogurt to be kidding me: Five articles plagiarized in one retracted paper

Accounting professor faked data for two studies, destroyed evidence: University report

James Hunton, via Bentley University
James Hunton, via Bentley University

The Bentley University accounting professor whose retraction we first reported on in November 2012 fabricated the data behind two papers, a university investigation has concluded.

James E. Hunton, who resigned in December 2012: Continue reading Accounting professor faked data for two studies, destroyed evidence: University report

Editorial mix-up leads to duplication, retraction of physics paper

A missed withdrawal request has led to doubled up publication and a later retraction for Brazilian physicists, through no fault of their own.

“Atmospheric Plasma Treatment of Carbon Fibers for Enhancement of Their Adhesion Properties” was presented at an Institute of Physics (IOP) conference in 2010. The proceedings weren’t published until May 2014.

In the meantime, the plasma scientists withdrew their paper from consideration and submitted it to IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, where it was published in February 2013. Unfortunately, in the four year delay between the conference and the Institute of Physics publication, the withdrawal request got lost.

Here’s the notice: Continue reading Editorial mix-up leads to duplication, retraction of physics paper

Boeing engineer has two papers retracted for duplication

j sound vibrationThe editor of the Journal of Sound and Vibration has retracted two papers by a Boeing engineer because the author reused his previous work.

Here’s the notice for “A component-based model for aircraft landing gear noise prediction,” by Yueping Guo: Continue reading Boeing engineer has two papers retracted for duplication

Authors of three retracted PLOS ONE papers to retract four more, with one researcher resigning

ChemosphereThe hits keep coming for a research group at the Institute of Microbial Technology (IMTECH) in Chandigarh, India.

Last week, we reported that PLoS ONE was retracting three papers by the research group because “there are no data available underlying this study and thus…the published results are fabricated.” Now, according to The Hindu, four more papers are being retracted:
Continue reading Authors of three retracted PLOS ONE papers to retract four more, with one researcher resigning

The camel doesn’t have two humps: Programming “aptitude test” canned for overzealous conclusion

Photo via Benutzerin:BS Thurner Hof

From Larry Summers to James Watson, certain scientists have a long and questionable tradition of using “data” to make claims about intelligence and aptitude.

So it’s no surprise that, when well-known computer scientist Richard Bornat claimed his PhD student had created a test to separate people who would succeed at programming versus those who didn’t, people happily embraced it. After all, it’s much easier to say there’s a large population that will just never get it, instead of re-examining your teaching methods.

The paper, called “The camel has two humps,” suggested instead of a bell curve, programming success rates look more like a two-humped ungulate: the kids who get it, and the kids who never will.

Though the paper was never formally published, it made the rounds pretty extensively. Now, Bornat has published a retraction, stating that he wrote the article during an antidepressant-driven mania that also earned him a suspension from his university. Here’s the meat of the notice: Continue reading The camel doesn’t have two humps: Programming “aptitude test” canned for overzealous conclusion