unhelpful retraction notices – Page 13

Veterinary journal pulls semen paper published (you guessed it) prematurely

It’s true what they say: You’ve covered one retraction-of-an-early-released-article-about-livestock-semen story, you’ve covered them all.

The Journal of Veterinary Medical Science has retracted an article in published as an early online paper back in August. The paper: “Incidence Study of Brucella abortus and Brucella melitensis in Bovine and Buffalo Semen Samples by Real-Time PCR Assay in Iran.”

The notice: Continue reading Veterinary journal pulls semen paper published (you guessed it) prematurely

Make it a double: Alcohol treatment study pulled for duplication

European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry has retracted a 2003 paper on the treatment of alcoholism for a vague “copyright violation.” But the reason appears to be that the article was largely identical to a 2002 report from one of the authors and other colleagues.

The offending paper, “Acamprosate and its efficacy in treating alcohol dependent adolescents,” appeared in June 2003 and has been cited 51 times, according to Google Scholar. The authors were Helmut Niederhofer and Wolfgang Staffen, of the Christian Doppler-Klinik, in Salzburg.

According to the rather uninformative notice: Continue reading Make it a double: Alcohol treatment study pulled for duplication

We missed one: Make that two retractions for Dirk Smeesters

Earlier today, we reported on what we thought was the first retraction to appear for Dirk Smeesters, who we noted was “the former Erasmus University social psychology professor investigated for serious irregularities in his work.” It turns out, however, as a Retraction Watch tipster told us, that another retraction had already been published.

The notice appeared in the August 2012 issue of the Journal of Consumer Research: Continue reading We missed one: Make that two retractions for Dirk Smeesters

Majority of retractions are due to misconduct: Study confirms opaque notices distort the scientific record

A new study out in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) today finds that two-thirds of retractions are because of some form of misconduct — a figure that’s higher than previously thought, thanks to unhelpful retraction notices that cause us to beat our heads against the wall here at Retraction Watch.

The study of 2,047 retractions in biomedical and life-science research articles in PubMed from 1973 until May 3, 2012 brings together three retraction researchers whose names may be familiar to Retraction Watch readers: Ferric Fang, Grant Steen, and Arturo Casadevall. Fang and Casadevall have published together, including on their Retraction Index, but this is the first paper by the trio.

The paper is Continue reading Majority of retractions are due to misconduct: Study confirms opaque notices distort the scientific record

A fistful of Stapels: Psych journal retracts five more from Dutch researcher, upping total to 25

Diederik Stapel’s CV continues to crumble, with five more retractions for the disgraced Dutch social scientist who admitted to fabricating data in his studies.

The latest articles to fall appeared in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, a Sage title, bringing Stapel’s total to 25 that we’re aware of so far: Continue reading A fistful of Stapels: Psych journal retracts five more from Dutch researcher, upping total to 25

Unnamed “ethical” lapse leads to retraction of fructose paper

The Journal of Clinical Biochemistry and Nutrition — the official publication of the Society for Free Radical Research Japan — has retracted a 2012 paper by a group of Turkish authors for some form of misconduct better left unstated. At least, that’s what the notice seems to suggest.

The paper, “Effects of coenzyme Q10 and α-lipoic acid supplementation in fructose fed rats,” was written by Özdoğan Serhat, Kaman Dilara, Bengü Şimşek Çobanoğlu, of Firat University and published in February of this year. According to the notice: Continue reading Unnamed “ethical” lapse leads to retraction of fructose paper

Protein journal retracts mystery paper that plagiarized phantom article

Protein & Peptide Letters, a Bentham title, has retracted a paper for plagiarism, but it’s the unhelpful — bordering on insulting — notice that caught our eye.

The abstract for the notice, the rest of which sits behind a $63.10 (plus tax) pay wall on Ingenta Connect, reads:

As per Bentham Science’s policy, the following article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief and its Authors published in `Protein & Peptide Letters“ due to their use of text obtained from another paper published in the Biochemical Journal.

Oh, my. Where to begin…

Continue reading Protein journal retracts mystery paper that plagiarized phantom article

Surprise, surprise: Study says retraction notices often aren’t honest about misconduct

A paper published online the other day in the Journal of Medical Ethics puts some numbers on an issue near and dear to Retraction Watch: How transparent are retraction notices when it comes to misconduct?

David Resnik and Gregg Dinse, of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, looked at the 208 cases closed by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity from 1992 to 2011 that involved “official findings of research misconduct.” As they note: Continue reading Surprise, surprise: Study says retraction notices often aren’t honest about misconduct

Hmmm: SAGE’s attorney explains why weight loss retraction notices said less than those of other journals

In May, we broke the story of Edward Shang, a weight loss surgeon who made up most, if not all, of the patients he reported on in at least one study. We’ve been following the case since then, including three more retractions in the Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (JPEN).