by reason for retraction – Page 57

‘Misunderstanding of the academic rules’ leads to retraction of arthritis paper

A group of arthritis researchers in China have lost a 2019 paper which was effectively an English-language reprint of an earlier article in a Chinese journal. Two of the authors blamed a “misunderstanding of the academic rules” on the part of their colleagues for the duplication.

The article, “The clinical significance of serum sCD25 as a sensitive disease activity marker for rheumatoid arthritis,” appeared in the Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology. But, as the retraction notice explains, the work wasn’t original:

Pass the salt…off as your own? Plagiarism, meet salinity.

A group of physicists in Morocco have lost a 2018 paper over plagiarism and other concerns.

The article, “A 2D fluid motion model of the estuarine water circulation: Physical analysis of the salinity stratification in the Sebou estuary,” appeared in European Physics Journal Plus. The first author, Soufiane Haddout, is listed as being at Ibn Tofail University in Kenitra.

According to the notice:

Controversial AI expert admits to plagiarism, blames hectic schedule

People scrolling through Siraj Raval’s Twitter feed, or watching his videos or paying money to hear his insights on “data literacy” likely expect that what they’re hearing are original pearls from an AI expert. Apparently, they shouldn’t.

Raval has admitted to stealing large amounts of text in a recently published paper on “neural qubit,” which he says he has removed from his website (although it seems to still be available), along with a YouTube video related to the work.

In an Oct. 13 tweet Raval copped to the misconduct:

Doing the right thing: Authors retract paper on autism and social clues after realizing an error

A team of researchers in Europe has retracted a 2016 paper on how people with autism process social cues after finding an error in their analysis.

The article, “Social Bayes: using Bayesian modeling to study autistic trait–related differences in social cognition,” appeared in Biological Psychiatry, an Elsevier journal.

The senior author of the paper is Leonhard Schilbach, of the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry in Munich and University Hospital Cologne. According to the abstract of the article:

Wanted: Lawyer to take case of Ohio cancer researcher with retraction-rich CV

Carlo Croce, the embattled and litigious cancer researcher at The Ohio State University, may be on the market for a new attorney.

Croce, who unsuccessfully sued the New York Times for libel after the newspaper reported on misconduct allegations against him, has been waging a second legal front against his institution. The grounds: Croce wants Ohio State to restore him to his position as chair of the Department of Cancer Biology and Genetics — a demand OSU has so far rejected.

Court documents suggest that the case has proceeded to depositions. But we’ve learned that Croce’s attorneys in the academic matter have dropped him as a client. In a motion approved earlier this month, the lawyers, from the Columbus firm James E. Arnold & Associates, petitioned to be removed from the case.

“Based on the literature, we have no reason not to believe to the authors.”

If you’re a fan of the post hoc fallacy, this post is for you. If not, we hope you’ll bear with us anyway.

In June, we reported on an expression of concern in the Journal of Cell Science for a 2006 paper “several bands…in Fig. 5 look very similar.” At the time, we noted that while the expression of concern claimed that the Istituto Superiore di Sanità, the authors’ institution, “does not have a suitable body to investigate this matter,” it in fact does.

After hearing that from us, Sharon Ahmad, the journal’s managing editor, approached Carlos Petrini, the director of bioethics at the ISS, who proceeded to investigate the work. Petrini has now sent us the summary of that investigation, which we’ve made available here.

A publisher just retracted 22 articles. And the whistleblower is just getting started.

SAGE Publishing is today retracting 22 articles by a materials science researcher who published in two of their journals — but the anonymous reader who brought the problems to their attention says the author’s duplication affects more than 100 articles.

Ali Nazari, now of Swinburne University of Technology in Australia, had five papers retracted earlier this year from an Elsevier journal. His total of now 27 retractions — the others from the International Journal of Damage Mechanics and the Journal of Composite Materials — came following emails in January of this year from an anonymous reader to several publishers raising concerns that Nazari had duplicated his work in more than 100 articles.

Here’s the retraction notice for the 22 articles retracted by SAGE:

“I sincerely apologise:” UK cancer researcher calls for retraction of his work years after it’s flagged on PubPeer

A cancer researcher in England says he will be retracting a 2011 paper after acknowledging “unacceptable” manipulation of some of the figures in the article.

Richard Hill, of the University of Portsmouth, this week agreed to retract the article, “DNA-PKcs binding to p53 on the p21WAF1/CIP1 promoter blocks transcription resulting in cell death,” which appeared in the journal Oncotarget.

The paper, which Hill wrote while he was at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, had drawn scrutiny on PubPeer four years ago, with one poster noting “many indications of blot image manipulation” in the figures. Additional comments appeared earlier this month.

In a comment on PubPeer posted this week, Hill wrote:

Former NCI postdoc faked data from nearly 60 experiments

A former postdoc at the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) made up data for 59 experiments that never happened, according to new findings by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity.

The ORI found that Rahul Agrawal “knowingly, intentionally, and/or recklessly falsified and/or fabricated:”

Springer Nature took eleven months to retract a plagiarized book, then made it disappear without a trace

A year ago today, Jennifer Powers, a co-author of a 2009 paper wrote to Springer Nature to alert the publisher to the fact that Tropical Dry Deciduous Forest: Research Trends and Emerging Features, a 2017 textbook by J. S. Singh and R.K. Chaturvedi, had plagiarized her work, and the work of others. A publisher representative responded six days later, saying they would look into the matter.

Then, for five months, crickets.

On January 23 of this year, Powers, of the University of Minnesota, sent another message asking for a progress report. Several days later, a Springer Nature staffer wrote to say they would provide an answer by mid-February.

Mid-February came and went, and the co-author sent another reminder, as did Jesse Lasky, of Penn State, another of the authors who said his work had been plagiarized. Back from Springer came this message:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: