by reason for retraction – Page 44

Wait, how did my name end up on that paper?

There’s an “us” in lupus, but no “we” — at least in the case of a 2020 paper whose list of authors was a fabrication.

Published in the journal Lupus, the article, “Antibodies to cellular prion protein and its cognate ligand stress-inducible protein 1 in systemic lupus erythematosus,” was written by a group led by Jozélio F Carvalho, a rheumatologist at the University of São Paulo. Or rather, by Carvalho himself.

According to the notice:

Duke engineering prof corrects seven papers for failures to disclose startup he co-founded

A chemistry journal has issued corrections for seven papers after learning that one of the authors failed to list his ownership of a company with a stake in the research.

The articles, which appeared in Lab on a Chip — a journal “at the interface between physical technological advancements and high impact applications” from the Royal Society of Chemistry — came from the lab of Tony Jun Huang, of Duke University in Durham, N.C. Huang, who holds the William Bevan Distinguished Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Duke, is a prominent figure in the field. According to his bio:

Here’s why you shouldn’t try to republish a paper you had retracted for plagiarism

A trio of speech researchers in India has lost a 2020 paper for a trifecta of malpractice: plagiarism, self-plagiarism (of a previously retracted article, no less!) and falsification of data.

The article, “Speech enhancement method using deep learning approach for hearing-impaired listeners,” appeared in January in Health Informatics Journal, a Sage title.

According to the abstract:

Spider researcher uses legal threats, public records requests to prevent retractions

The case of Jonathan Pruitt, a spider researcher suspected of fabricating data in potentially dozens of studies, keeps getting weirder.

Pruitt, according to our count, now has six retractions. Currently associate professor and Canada 150 Research Chair at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, he made a name for himself by providing other scientists with field data — much of which now appears to be unreliable.

Among the latest developments in the case is a correction in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, for a 2016 article titled “Behavioural hypervolumes of spider communities predict community performance and disbandment.” That followed this April expression of concern, which read:

Apparent duplication from anesthesiology journal puts heart paper into intensive care

A heart journal has issued an expression of concern about a 2017 paper which looks suspiciously like a 2016 article by some of the same researchers that appeared in an anesthesiology publication.

The 2017 paper, “Efficacy of prophylactic dexmedetomidine in preventing postoperative junctional ectopic tachycardia after pediatric cardiac surgery,” was written by a group led by Doaa Mohamed El Amrousy, of Tanta University Hospital in Egypt.

Several months earlier, El Amrousy and two of his co-authors, Nagat S. El-Shmaa and Wael El Feky, published a similar article in the Annals of Cardiac Anesthesia, titled “The efficacy of pre-emptive dexmedetomidine versus amiodarone in preventing postoperative junctional ectopic tachycardia in pediatric cardiac surgery.”

How similar? Apparently too much.

Former Maryland researcher banned from Federal funding for misconduct

At least seven years after questions were first raised about work by a researcher at the University of Maryland Baltimore, School of Medicine, he has agreed to a three-year ban on Federal funding.

Anil Jaiswal, whose first retraction appeared in 2013, faked data in eight NIH grant applications and six papers supported by Federal grants, according to a new finding by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI). Jaiswal, the ORI said,

intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly: (a) used random blank background sections of film or empty boxes to falsely represent or fabricate western blot analyses; (b) used manipulated images to generate and report falsified data in figures; and (c) used mislabeled images to falsely report data in figures.

Drug abuse researcher faked data in grant applications, says Federal watchdog

A researcher at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center (TTUHSC) in Amarillo plagiarized or faked data in four different federal U.S. grant applications, according to a new finding by the agency responsible for oversight of research integrity at the National Institutes of Health.

Rahul Dev Jayant, according to the Office of Research Integrity, “engaged in research misconduct by intentionally plagiarizing, falsifying, and/or fabricating data” in grant applications to the National Institute on Drug Abuse and National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism for work on alcoholism and opioid dependence. The applications were submitted late last year and early this year.

Jayant, the ORI found, plagiarized from papers by other authors in Nature Protocols and Nature Communications, falsified data in various figures, and fabricated nine bar graphs.

Diabetes-COVID-19 paper retracted for lack of ethical approval

An allegation of plagiarism in a paper about Covid-19 in people with diabetes led to a retraction, but not for lifted text.

Earlier this year, the journal Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics, a Mary Ann Liebert title, published “No deleterious effect of lockdown due to COVID-19 pandemic on glycaemic control, measured by glucose monitoring, in adults with type 1 diabetes.” The author was Pilar Isabel Beato-Vi[accent over i]bora, of University Hospital Complex Badajoz, in Spain.

According to the article, the lockdown of Spain in response to the pandemic did not seem to make it harder for people with type 1 diabetes there to control their blood sugar.

The finding made at least one headline, in Medscape, which covered the paper when it appeared online in May.

But it also sounded alarms with at least one reader. As the retraction notice explains:

Paper earns expression of concern after author blames COVID-19 restrictions for not being able to find raw data

The pandemic ate our data.

A group of researchers in India whose findings in a 2015 paper evidently looked too good to be true have received an expression of concern because they claim Covid-19 restrictions have made it impossible to recover their raw data.

The article, “Possible role of P-glycoprotein in the neuroprotective mechanism of berberine in intracerebroventricular streptozotocin-induced cognitive dysfunction,” appeared in Psychopharmacology, a Springer Nature journal. The authors, led by Anil Kumar, were affiliated with the University Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences at Panjab University in Chandigarh.

Cancer researcher hit with 10-year ban on federal US funding for nearly 100 faked images

A former scientist at Wayne State University in Detroit who lost his PhD from the institution has agreed to a 10-year ban on any federally funded research after being found guilty of misconduct.

The U.S. Office of Research Integrity says Zhiwei Wang fabricated data in nine grants funded by the National Institutes of Health, as well as in three grant applications and his 2006 doctorate.

Wang’s bogus data was published in 15 14 papers, according to the ORI, 14 13 of which already have been retracted. Under the terms of the agreement, Wang will ask for the retraction or correction of the 15th article, a 2008 study in Molecular Cancer Therapeutics titled “Induction of growth arrest and apoptosis in human breast cancer cells by 3,3-diindolylmethane is associated with induction and nuclear localization of p27kip.”

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: