Category: by reason for retraction

Giving thanks for plagiarism detection software: Catching up on retractions for the sincerest form of flattery

Today, on Thanksgiving in the U.S., Retraction Watch is taking a bit of a holiday as we dig into some turkey — not to be confused with retractions from Turkey. We’d like to give thanks for the thousands of Retraction Watch readers all over the world who’ve helped us shine a spotlight on the scientific process, warts and all.

And we imagine that journal editors around the globe are giving thanks to plagiarism detection software such as iThenticate, so today’s post is a roundup of some recent retractions for plagiarism: Continue reading Giving thanks for plagiarism detection software: Catching up on retractions for the sincerest form of flattery

What’s new is not new again: Ulrich Lichtenthaler retracts eighth paper

The list of Ulrich Lichtenthaler retractions has grown to eight.

Here’s the new notice, for “Externally commercializing technology assets: An examination of different process stages,” from the Journal of Business Venturing: Continue reading What’s new is not new again: Ulrich Lichtenthaler retracts eighth paper

ORI sanctions former University of Kentucky nutrition researcher for faking dozens of images in 10 papers

Eric J. Smart, via U Kentucky

The U.S. Office of Research Integrity has come down hard on a Eric J. Smart, an NIH-funded former University of Kentucky nutrition researcher who faked data in ten published papers and seven grant applications over the past decade.

Smart studies cholesterol, heart disease, diabetes, and high blood pressure. According to the notice in the Federal Register: Continue reading ORI sanctions former University of Kentucky nutrition researcher for faking dozens of images in 10 papers

Image correction in Current Biology for Harvard’s Sam Lee

The work of Sam W. Lee, a cancer biologist at Harvard and Massachusetts General Hospital, has come under fire at Science Fraud lately over concerns about the possible reuse of images in his group’s published studies.

Turns out there’s some there, there after all. The journal Current Biology has issued a pretty thorny correction for one of Lee’s 2006 articles, “RhoE Is a Pro-Survival p53 Target Gene that Inhibits ROCK I-Mediated Apoptosis in Response to Genotoxic Stress,” citing multiple issues with its figures: Continue reading Image correction in Current Biology for Harvard’s Sam Lee

Accounting fraud paper retracted for “misstatement”

The Accounting Review, a publication of the American Accounting Association, has retracted a 2010 paper, but the reason for the move is less than clear.

The article, “A Field Experiment Comparing the Outcomes of Three Fraud Brainstorming Procedures: Nominal Group, Round Robin, and Open Discussion,” was by James E. Hunton, an award-winning accountancy prof at Bentley University in Waltham, Mass., and Anna Gold [updated 1/22/13 to update link], of Erasmus University in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. It has been cited 24 times, according to Google Scholar.

According to the retraction notice: Continue reading Accounting fraud paper retracted for “misstatement”

The Nature paper that required three corrections

courtesy Nature

In baseball, it’s three strikes and you’re out. In Nature, apparently, you can stay at the plate after three swings-and-misses.

That’s what we concluded from a Corrigendum in last week’s issue, for “CD95 promotes tumour growth,” originally published in May 2010 and now corrected not once, not twice, but three times.

Here was the first Corrigendum, from March 2011: Continue reading The Nature paper that required three corrections

JBC publisher ASBMB hiring manager of publication ethics — and why Retraction Watch is cheering

We’re not generally — or ever — in the habit of running job ads here on Retraction Watch. But the purpose of this post is to highlight a new position available at the American Society for Biochemistry & Molecular Biology (ASBMB) that we think is a great opportunity and a step forward for the society.

As regular Retraction Watch readers know, we frequently beat up on one of the ASBMB’s journals, the Journal of Biological Chemistry (JBC), for publishing retraction notices that say simply “This article has been withdrawn by the authors.” We’re not the only ones; Ferric Fang and colleagues name-checked the journal’s policy when they wrote about factors that Continue reading JBC publisher ASBMB hiring manager of publication ethics — and why Retraction Watch is cheering

Retraction seven arrives for Ulrich Lichtenthaler

Ulrich Lichtenthaler, the management professor at the University of Mannheim who has already retracted six papers for statistical irregularities, has another retraction for his CV.

Here’s the notice, from Organization Science: Continue reading Retraction seven arrives for Ulrich Lichtenthaler

“Administrative error” leads to duplication retraction

Forgive us if we’re a tad skeptical here, but we’re not convinced about the, um, sincerity of the following retraction notice.

The International Journal of Biological Macromolecules has retracted a paper it published earlier this year by a group of Canadian researchers who had already published the same paper in a different journal.

The article, “Spectroscopic investigation of collagen scaffolds impregnated with AgNPs coated by PEG/TX-100 mixed systems,” came from researchers at the University of Saskatchewan and appeared in the April issue of the IJBM.

But according to the notice: Continue reading “Administrative error” leads to duplication retraction

Another retraction from University of Waterloo, this time for duplication

Canada’s University of Waterloo is racking up the retractions, with one in July for plagiarism, another earlier this month for faked data from a graduate student who had her master’s degree revoked, and now a third for duplication.

Here’s the notice, for “The influence of friends, family, and older peers on smoking among elementary school students: Low-risk students in high-risk schools,” which appeared in Preventive Medicine in March 2006: Continue reading Another retraction from University of Waterloo, this time for duplication