Category: by reason for retraction

Salami slicing in pork research leads to retractions

foodprotectionWe get accused of grabbing at cheap puns around here, but the headline above is meant to be taken straight up.

Three journals in the food sciences are retracting a trio of papers published last year on bacterial contamination in pork products because the articles used the same data sets — a classic (Platonic?) case of “salami slicing.”

The Journal of Food Protection, which published one of the articles, “Performance of three culture media commonly used for detecting Listeria monocytogenes,” has the following retraction notice:

Continue reading Salami slicing in pork research leads to retractions

University of Wisconsin neuroscientist faked data in two papers: ORI

adibhatla
Rao Adibhatla, via University of Wisconsin

A University of Wisconsin neuroscience researcher falsified “Western blot images as well as quantitative and statistical data” in two NIH-supported papers and three unfunded grant applications, the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has found.

As first reported by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel and then The Scientist, Rao M. Adibhatla has agreed to retract the two papers, in the Journal of Biological Chemistry and Brain Research: Continue reading University of Wisconsin neuroscientist faked data in two papers: ORI

Lyme disease diagnostics review retracted for plagiarism

Medical reviewA review paper published in the Serbian journal Medicinski pregled (Medical review) has been retracted for plagiarising a 2002 paper published in the Croatian Journal of Infection (or Infektološki glasnik).

The retraction note (in Serbian only) in the current issue (vol. 65, issue 11-12) of Medicinski pregled, published by the Society of Physicians of Vojvodina of the Medical Society of Serbia reads: Continue reading Lyme disease diagnostics review retracted for plagiarism

Authors “regretfully” retract genomics paper for plagiarism

jasbcoverAuthors of a 2012 article in the Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology have retracted it for plagiarism. 

The article, “Progress of genome wide association study in domestic animals,” came from a group of chicken geneticists in China affiliated with the Ministry of Agriculture in Harbin and Northeast Agricultural University, in the same city.

According to the retraction notice: Continue reading Authors “regretfully” retract genomics paper for plagiarism

Stapel watch reaches 45 retractions

stapel_npcKeeping up with the retraction count of Diederik Stapel is proving to be a, well, staple of this job. Four more retractions brings the figure to 45.

The articles in question are: Continue reading Stapel watch reaches 45 retractions

McGill committee says Nature figures were “intentionally contrived and falsified”

msaleh
Maya Saleh, via McGill

An associate professor at Montreal’s McGill University is correcting two papers, one of them in Nature, after a university committee found evidence of falsification, Retraction Watch has learned.

Concerns had been raised about four papers by Maya Saleh and colleagues: Continue reading McGill committee says Nature figures were “intentionally contrived and falsified”

This is 40 (and 41): More retractions for Diederik Stapel

stapel_npcIt turns out we missed two more recent retractions from Diederik Stapel. They were nestled in the table of contents of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology that contained four retractions we covered last week.

The notices, for “Method matters: Effects of explicit versus implicit social comparisons on activation, behavior, and self views” (cited 48 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge) and “From seeing to being: Subliminal social comparisons affect implicit and explicit self-evaluations” (cited 95 times), both say the same thing: Continue reading This is 40 (and 41): More retractions for Diederik Stapel

Curi-us: Author whose lawyers threatened Science Fraud corrects a paper the site criticized

curi
Rui Curi

A few weeks ago, we reported on the shutdown of Science-Fraud.org, a site dedicated to highlighting problems with scientific papers, thanks to legal threats. At the same time, we noted that Rui Curi, one of the authors whose work had been questioned — and whose lawyers had sent the site a cease-and-desist letter — ended up retracting a paper the site had questioned.

Now, Curi has corrected another paper that featured on Science-Fraud.org. Here’s the notice: for “Comparative toxicity of oleic and linoleic acid on human lymphocytes,” which was originally published in Life Science in 2006: Continue reading Curi-us: Author whose lawyers threatened Science Fraud corrects a paper the site criticized

Hey authors, “Renewable Energy” doesn’t mean you can recycle words

renewableenergycoverRenewable Energy may cover conservation, but that doesn’t mean it expects its authors to recycle their own words. The Elsevier journal is retracting a biodiesel paper it published in February 2012 by a group of Chinese researchers who published much the same work in another title a month later. That periodical, the Journal of the American Oil Chemists Society, from Springer, has retracted its version as well.

Here’s the notice in Renewable Energy: Continue reading Hey authors, “Renewable Energy” doesn’t mean you can recycle words