Category: by reason for retraction

How to avoid retractions for plagiarism: Advice from a radiology journal editor (and arXiv)

Earlier this month, we highlighted the concerns of the editors of the ACS Nano journal about self-plagiarism, otherwise known as duplication. The editor of the American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR) — that’s radiology, for the uninitiated — has similar concerns, but about plagiarism of others’ work.

In an editorial published in the journal’s January issue, Thomas Berquist notes:

Preliminary data including all article types accepted by AJR show that the amount of duplication varies significantly with different article types. For example, duplication in Original Research articles may be up to 58% and in Memorials, 23%. That is not to say that all duplications are significant or deliberate. For example, most computer software packages pick up words that are the same in a given sentence, pulse sequences that vary with vendors, and other similarities that may be appropriately referenced or quoted.

The ORI, Berquist notes, “has reported that up to 25% of their misconduct allegations involve plagiarism.” So how can authors avoid it? Continue reading How to avoid retractions for plagiarism: Advice from a radiology journal editor (and arXiv)

Dental X-rays linked to Alzheimer’s disease? Abstract saying so temporarily withdrawn

Alzheimer’s & Dementia has “temporarily withdrawn” a 2012 abstract, slated for publication next month, linking Alzheimer’s disease with exposure to dental x-rays.

The author is Caroline Rodgers, a self-described “independent writer/researcher who investigates public health issues and advocates for change.” Although we can’t find the text, we’re guessing that its premise is similar to that of her 2011 paper in Medical Hypotheses, titled “Dental X-ray exposure and Alzheimer’s disease: a hypothetical etiological association.”

Here’s the abstract from that paper: Continue reading Dental X-rays linked to Alzheimer’s disease? Abstract saying so temporarily withdrawn

Tenth Potti retraction appears, in Clinical Cancer Research

Anil Potti and his colleagues have retracted another paper, “Characterizing the Clinical Relevance of an Embryonic Stem Cell Phenotype in Lung Adenocarcinoma,” originally published in the December 15, 2009, issue of Clinical Cancer Research.

According to the notice: Continue reading Tenth Potti retraction appears, in Clinical Cancer Research

“Failure probability” turns out to be quite high as engineers double-submit paper, then see it retracted

A couple of engineers in Iran turn out to be better at predicting the “failure probability” of water pipes than of their chances of being published.

Consider this retraction notice for “Estimation of failure probability in water pipes network using statistical model,” originally published in February 2011 in Engineering Failure Analysis: Continue reading “Failure probability” turns out to be quite high as engineers double-submit paper, then see it retracted

Flawed model leads to retraction of polymer paper

The International Journal of Impact Engineering has a highly technical retraction of an article whose authors discovered that crucial findings relied on a model that was different from the one they reported using in a particular figure.

The article, “Dynamic behavior of polymers at high strain-rates based on split Hopkinson pressure bar tests,” was published online last November by a pair of researchers from the U.K. and China. As the notice states:

Continue reading Flawed model leads to retraction of polymer paper

We’re mostly wrong, but trust us: Our column on mega-corrections for Lab Times

courtesy Nature

Have you seen this correction, from the September 8, 2011 issue of Nature, for “Tumour vascularization via endothelial differentiation of glioblastoma stem-like cells?”

The figures and Supplementary figures of this Letter are affected by errors and improper editing. The correct figures are now provided, with an explanation of the variations. The original Letter has not been corrected online. We apologise for the confusion that our errors could have produced. We admit our negligence in the supervision of technical activity. We acknowledge that image manipulation is not acceptable and that any image modification must be clearly described. None of the alterations have any direct impact on the validity of our conclusions, which were also substantially confirmed in papers published by other independent groups1, 2. Continue reading We’re mostly wrong, but trust us: Our column on mega-corrections for Lab Times

Oops! Tissue Antigens retracts paper after accidentally publishing it twice

A retraction notice from Tissue Antigens:

The following article from Tissue Antigens, A gene-specific primer extension and liquid bead array system for killer cell immunoglobulin-like receptor genotyping by H. J. Park, Y. Oh, H. J. Kang, E. J. Han, H. Y. Shin, H. S. Ahn, K. S. Ahn, B. H. Yoon & B. D. Han, published online on 14 March 2011 in Wiley Online Library (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com) and in Tissue Antigens, 77:535–539, has been retracted by agreement between the authors, the journal Editor-in-Chief, James McCluskey, and Blackwell Publishing Ltd. The retraction has been agreed due to inadvertent publication of the same article in a prior issue of the journal: Park, H. J., Oh, Y., Kang, H. J., Han, E. J., Shin, H. Y., Ahn, H. S., Ahn, K. S., Yoon, B. H. and Han, B. D. (2011), A gene-specific primer extension and liquid bead array system for killer-cell immunoglobulin-like receptor genotyping.Tissue Antigens, 77:251–256. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. accepts responsibility for this error. Continue reading Oops! Tissue Antigens retracts paper after accidentally publishing it twice

Three AHA journals retract lipid papers over “negligent” record-keeping, image issues and more

Three journals belonging to the American Heart Association are dealing with a data manipulation case involving a Japanese scientist who collaborated with some of the United States’ most prominent  cardiac specialists.

Circulation has retracted a 2008 article after the researchers said the lead author’s sloppy record-keeping prevented them from reproducing their experiments. We think there might be a bit more to the story.

Here’s the notice: Continue reading Three AHA journals retract lipid papers over “negligent” record-keeping, image issues and more

Amid lawsuits, toxicology journal corrects four asbestos papers for failure to cite author links to Georgia-Pacific

The journal Inhalation Toxicology has issued a fascinating correction notice covering four articles on various aspects of asbestos exposure by a group of researchers who failed to note their connection to Georgia-Pacific, the industrial giant that became caught up in a deluge of costly lawsuits over the carcinogenic chemical during the 1980s.

As the notice indicates, the ties weren’t mere tangents, but rather involved obvious — and obviously conflicting — relationships: Continue reading Amid lawsuits, toxicology journal corrects four asbestos papers for failure to cite author links to Georgia-Pacific

Not so fast! Journal retracts paper from Boldt group over author hijinks, more

We knew we hadn’t heard the last of Joachim Boldt, whose nearly 90 retractions make him the putative record holder for a single author in this indistinguished club. But we didn’t expect this:

The European Journal of Anaesthesiology has retracted a paper, “Supplemental oxygen reduces serotonin levels in plasma and platelets during colorectal surgery and reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting,” from Boldt’s former colleagues at the Klinikum Ludwigshafen after determining that the authors were trying to hide their association with the disgraced anesthesiologist.

Continue reading Not so fast! Journal retracts paper from Boldt group over author hijinks, more