We have an update on the case of Parag Patel, the Park Ridge, Illinois cardiologist whom the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) said “engaged in research misconduct by directing or intimidating fellows and others to influence” test results so that patients would be eligible for a clinical trial.
A 2013 paper in Nature that was among those whose first or last author had committed a “violation of academic integrity,” according to Utrecht University, has been retracted.
Erasmus University in Rotterdam has issued its final report on psychologist Dirk Smeesters, concluding that the former Erasmus faculty member had committed research misconduct in a total of seven papers. Three of those articles already have been retracted in the case, as we reported in December 2012.
The committee investigation is in fact a follow-up inquiry — thus its name, the Smeesters Follow-Up Investigation Committee — prompted by concerns that an initial probe was incomplete. According to the report, the four-member panel conducted an “in-depth analysis” of every paper Smeesters, who left the university’s Rotterdam School of Management in July 2012, was “actively” involved in. That turned out to be 22 articles (not including three others already retracted).
Sahoo, as we reported last year, had lost five articles in Acta Biomaterialia for what the journal called “highly unethical practices.”
The latest retraction involves an article titled “Composite Polymeric Magnetic Nanoparticles for Codelivery of Hydrophobic and Hydrophilic Anticancer Drugs and MRI Imaging for Cancer Therapy,” which first appeared online in 2011 in AM&I, a publication of the American Chemical Society.
A cardiology researcher in Illinois coerced trainees to fake the results of a heart test so that patients would qualify to enter a clinical trial, according to a new finding by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI).
Karel Bezouška, the scientist who tried to tamper with an investigation into his work by breaking into a lab refrigerator, has had his fifth and sixth papers retracted.
The journal Wear — an Elsevier title, not a Condé Nast fashion magazine — has retracted a paper by a pair of Chinese physicists after the researchers were unable to replicate their findings.
The 2009 article, “Microstructure and tribological characterizations of Ni based self-lubricating coating,” was written by authors from the MOE Key Laboratory for Nonequilibrium Synthesis and Modulation of Condensed Matter and the MOE Key Laboratory for Strength and Vibration at Jiaotong University, in Xi’an. It purported to find that: Continue reading Doing the right thing: Authors retract lubricant paper whose findings they can’t reproduce
Rick Reilly, a noted sports columnist, once wrote about football replays:
Tell me if I’m a crank, but do you notice that every time a football replay comes up—and I mean every time—the color guy goes, “OK, now watch this!” I mean, what else are we gonna do? Suddenly start knitting a sweater? Start collecting for UNICEF? You don’t need to tell us to watch the TV set we’re already watching! OK, maybe I am a crank.
But readers of Reilly might well have wondered why they were being subjected to replays of his work. His bosses at ESPN.com evidently did, because they’ve unplugged the writer’s keyboard in the wake of a self-plagiarism scandal, according to news reports. Such self-plagiarism — more accurately referred to as duplication — is of course a frequent reason for retractions.
We’ve reported on some pretty impressive cases of researchers doing their own peer review, one of which led to 28 retractions. We have another.
