Category: by reason for retraction

Serbian scientists decry systematic plagiarism, predatory publishing

serbiaAn open letter to the Serbian science ministry – coinciding with the new government’s first 100 days in office – and an accompanying petition signed by 850 scientists so far, makes for pretty dim reading on the state of research ethics in Serbia.

The systematic and apparently state-endorsed practice of artificially boosting one’s ratings in the national evaluation system, which drives promotions and helps set salaries, has led to a range of abuses that are promoting mediocrity while driving scientific talent out of the country, says the letter, published in late October.

The authors say that the offenses that have proliferated over the last decade, and which are being “systematically hidden” under what the letter says are bad policies set by the science ministry, include: Continue reading Serbian scientists decry systematic plagiarism, predatory publishing

De-Toxicology: Authors pull more meeting abstracts, citing journal error

toxicologyWe recently wrote about a group of English scientists who asked Toxicology to de-publish their abstract from a conference proceedings issue. Turns out they were far from alone.

The journal’s December issue has at least five more such removal notices, all for the same problem.

The notices read: Continue reading De-Toxicology: Authors pull more meeting abstracts, citing journal error

Another retraction for Pfizer’s experimental cancer treatment figitumumab

6794 BJC_newblue_V1.qxdLast month, we brought you news that Pfizer had retracted a paper in the Journal of Clinical Oncology

purporting to show a benefit of their experimental drug for lung cancer figitumumab after discovering that its clinical lead on the project had done analyses improperly.

There’s been another retraction, of a related paper, in the British Journal of Cancer, “Pre-treatment levels of circulating free IGF-1 identify NSCLC patients who derive clinical benefit from figitumumab.” Here’s the notice: Continue reading Another retraction for Pfizer’s experimental cancer treatment figitumumab

Funding agency sanctions Bulfone-Paus and former postdoc

Silvia Bulfone-Paus
Silvia Bulfone-Paus

Retraction Watch readers may recall the case of Silvia Bulfone-Paus, a researcher at Germany’s Research Center Borstel who was a frequent subject of posts in the early days of this blog. Bulfone-Paus has had to retract 13 papers amid investigations into allegations of image manipulation.

To briefly recap: In May 2010, several months after concerns had first been raised, Borstel let the DFG (German Research Foundation) know about the allegations, because they had funded the work. A November 2010 report from Borstel said that the allegations had merit, blaming two of Bulfone-Paus’s postdocs but criticizing how she supervised them. As the DFG notes in a summary of its findings on the case, posted late last week: Continue reading Funding agency sanctions Bulfone-Paus and former postdoc

Quantum physicists learn about Heisenberg’s (publishing) uncertainty principle the hard way

tsfcoverAs Werner Heisenberg famously conjectured, you can’t measure an atomic particle’s momentum and position at the same time. But perhaps the principle named for the German physicist and godfather of quantum mechanics should be applied to another important scientific truth: you can’t publish the same article in two different but competing journals.

Just ask a group led by Ted Sargent, a prominent physicist at the University of Toronto. He and his colleagues recently lost a paper in Thin Solid Films — which sounds like it ought to be the name of an indie movie company, dibs! — on quantum dot solar cells. (If those sound familiar to readers of this blog, there’s a good reason. We wrote about the retraction of another quantum dot paper, this one in Nature Photonics, in October of this year.)

Sargent’s article, “Advances in colloidal quantum dot solar cells: The depleted-heterojunction device,” which he wrote with colleagues in Spain and Switzerland, appeared in August 2011. According to the notice: Continue reading Quantum physicists learn about Heisenberg’s (publishing) uncertainty principle the hard way

Elsevier editorial system hacked, reviews faked, 11 retractions follow

elsevierFor several months now, we’ve been reporting on variations on a theme: Authors submitting fake email addresses for potential peer reviewers, to ensure positive reviews. In August, for example, we broke the story of a Hyung-In Moon, who has now retracted 24 papers published by Informa because he managed to do his own peer review.

Now, Retraction Watch has learned that the Elsevier Editorial System (EES) was hacked sometime last month, leading to faked peer reviews and retractions — although the submitting authors don’t seem to have been at fault. As of now, eleven papers by authors in China, India, Iran, and Turkey have been retracted from three journals.

Here’s one of two identical notices that have just run in Optics & Laser Technology, for two unconnected papers: Continue reading Elsevier editorial system hacked, reviews faked, 11 retractions follow

Failure at System — systems failure? — leads to duplicate publication, retraction

systemcoverThe journal System evidently needs a new one — at least when it comes to production.

The publication has been forced to retract an article that it published twice — in the same issue.

Here’s what happened: Continue reading Failure at System — systems failure? — leads to duplicate publication, retraction

Two patch-clamping retractions in PNAS and the JCI after first author admits image manipulation

jci1212A group of cardiology researchers formerly of the University of Cologne has retracted two papers, after investigations into allegations of misconduct led to an admission of guilt by one of the lab’s junior members.

Here’s the first retraction, for “Connexin 43 acts as a cytoprotective mediator of signal transduction by stimulating mitochondrial KATP channels in mouse cardiomyocytes,” published last week in the Journal of Clinical Investigation: Continue reading Two patch-clamping retractions in PNAS and the JCI after first author admits image manipulation

Serial plagiarists earn lifetime publishing ban from Saudi journal

saudimedicineIn April, we wrote about a group of cancer researchers from Tunisia:

The M.O. of the group…appears to be quite simple: Find a study that looks easy to “replicate,” change a few of the particulars and submit as if it were a piece of local, original work.

One of the papers we cited in that post for appearing to be heavily plagiarized has now been retracted, with a heavy penalty for the authors. Here’s the notice, from the Annals of Saudi Medicine:  Continue reading Serial plagiarists earn lifetime publishing ban from Saudi journal

“Serious errors” in figures prompt concerning Neuroscience retraction

neuroscience1212 coverNeuroscience has retracted a 2009 paper by a team of Korean sports researchers for what appear to be figure irregularities. But the journal’s handling of the case is puzzling and unhelpful.

The article, “Treadmill exercise improves cognitive function and facilitates nerve growth factor signaling by activating mitogen-activated protein kinase/extracellular signal-regulated kinase1/2 in the streptozotocin-induced diabetic rat hippocampus,” came out of Korea National Sport University, among others. It seemed to suggest that exercise could make diabetic rats smarter.

According to the retraction notice: Continue reading “Serious errors” in figures prompt concerning Neuroscience retraction