Category: by reason for retraction

Concern — in triplicate — arrives for Poldermans papers

Jacc1212coverThe Journal of the American College of Cardiology, or JACC, has issued expressions of concern for three papers by Don Poldermans, the Dutch cardiologist who was fired earlier this year amid allegations of misconduct.

Cardiobrief’s Larry Husten had the story first.

The, um, heart of the matter is that neither the investigators at Erasmus Medical Center, Poldermans’ former institution, nor the JACC editors, can say whether the researchers conduct rose to the level of fabricating data. As the Notice of Concern states: Continue reading Concern — in triplicate — arrives for Poldermans papers

ORI investigating work from Caltech lab as PNAS paper is retracted

pnas1219The U.S. Office of Research Integrity is investigating work done at a Caltech lab after researchers there couldn’t replicate it, and retracted a paper based on the findings.

Here’s the notice, which ran this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS): Continue reading ORI investigating work from Caltech lab as PNAS paper is retracted

RNA paper retracted for “carelessness in including some of the figures”

molcellbiochemHere at Retraction Watch, we’ve covered retractions for misconduct, journal errors, editorial system hacking and even no particular reason.

And that’s just in the last week.

However, we’ve identified a new reported reason: carelessness. A paper in Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry claimed to show how a tiny RNA causes fat cells to die.

Instead, the paper died.

Turned out that rather than describe previously published data, the authors say they inadvertently included a figure that had already appeared in another paper.

The retraction for “miR-598 induces replicative senescence in human adipose tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cells via silent information regulator 1,” reads, in full: Continue reading RNA paper retracted for “carelessness in including some of the figures”

“Some sentences…are directly taken from other papers, which could be viewed as a form of plagiarism”

plant phys biochemPlant Physiology and Biochemistry has an amusing retraction notice this month that underscores the perils of allowing authors to come up with their own statements.

The paper, “Molecular strategies in manipulation of the starch synthesis pathway for improving storage starch content in plants (review and prospect for increasing storage starch synthesis),” came from a group at Sichuan Agricultural University in China — including its Maize Research Institute — and was published in the December 2012 issue.

Continue reading “Some sentences…are directly taken from other papers, which could be viewed as a form of plagiarism”

Journal of Neuroscience retraction, typically opaque, from author with history of errors

jneuroscienceThe Journal of Neuroscience has retracted a 2011 paper by an international group of scientists, including the prominent Maryland researcher Ronald Dubner, but readers won’t know why.

As the notice “explains“: Continue reading Journal of Neuroscience retraction, typically opaque, from author with history of errors

Dental papers retracted after investigations find “issue with respect to misconduct”

jomfpSometimes, retraction notices offer tantalizing clues, but no real information. Take the case of a paper called “Florid osseous dysplasia,” which was published last year in Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology by a group at Mumbai’s Nair Hospital Dental College and retracted recently.

Here’s the notice, which is suggestive but doesn’t say much: Continue reading Dental papers retracted after investigations find “issue with respect to misconduct”

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