Two months after Harvard and the Brigham and Women’s Hospital said they were requesting the
retraction of more than 30 papers from a former cardiac stem cell lab there, two American Heart Association journals have retracted more than a dozen papers from the lab.
Circulation retracted three papers, and Circulation Research retracted 10. All 13 were among 15 subjected to expressions of concern last month. Continue reading Anversa cardiac stem cell lab earns 13 retractions
More than four and a half years after questions were first raised about work in a cardiac stem cell lab at Harvard and the Brigham and Women’s Hospital , a year and a half after the Brigham and Partners Healthcare paid $10 million to settle allegations of fraud in the lab’s data, a month after Harvard the Brigham disclosed that they were calling for the retractions of more than 30 papers from the lab , and three weeks after the NIH paused a clinical trial based on the work , two leading journals have issued an expression of concern about 15 papers from the lab .
But expressions of concern are not retractions, of course. From the notice, in Circulation and Circulation Research , both of which are published by the American Heart Association: Continue reading Journals stamp expressions of concern on 15 papers from Anversa’s cardiac stem cell lab
Pro-tip for journals and publishers: When you decide to publish a paper about a subject — say, diets — that you know will draw a great deal of scrutiny from vocal proponents of alternatives, make sure it’s as close to airtight as possible.
And in the event that the paper turns out not to be so airtight, write a retraction notice that’s not vague and useless.
Oh, and make sure the lead author of said study isn’t a convicted felon who pleaded guilty to healthcare fraud .
If only we were describing a hypothetical. Continue reading A convicted felon writes a paper on hotly debated diets. What could go wrong?
Retraction Watch readers may be familiar with the name
Piero Anversa. Until several years ago, Anversa, a scientist at Harvard Medical School and the Brigham and Women’s Hospital, was a powerful figure in cardiac stem cell research.
“For ten years, he ran everything,” says
Jeffery Molkentin, a researcher at Cincinnati Children’s whose lab was among the first to question the basis of Anversa’s results in a 2014 paper in Nature. Continue reading Harvard and the Brigham recommend 31 retractions for cardiac stem cell work
Researchers have retracted a 2018 paper about the genetic underpinnings of heart disease from the FASEB Journal — and it’s not entirely clear why.
The paywalled retraction notice simply cites a “nonscientific reason.” Cody Mooneyhan, the director of publications at the journal, declined to provide further details, and the authors have provided different accounts of what happened: The paper’s corresponding author, John Yu , told Retraction Watch that he requested the retraction because the first author, Chia‐Ti Tsai , refused to sign the journal’s copyright agreement . Tsai , a professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at National Taiwan University in Taipei , told us he was “ not notified before the paper was submitted.” Continue reading Authors retract heart disease paper for “nonscientific reason”
Title: Patient Education After CABG: Are We Teaching the Wrong Information?
What Caught Our Attention: We’ve written about the controversy surrounding a commonly used tool to measure whether patients are sticking to their drug regimen , known as the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8). It can cost thousands of dollars — and using it without payment/permission earns researchers a call from a collector, who has used legal threats to compel multiple teams to withdraw their papers (a phenomenon we wrote about in Science ). The creator of the tool argues it’s copyrighted, and demanding fees ensures researchers use it properly, which avoids putting patients at risk. We’ve found a notice ( paywalled , tsk-tsk) that reveals another group of authors used the tool without permission and, according to the notice, “incorrectly.”
Continue reading Caught Our Notice: Using this research tool? You’d better ask first
Title: Endotoxaemia during left ventricular assist device insertion: relationship between risk factors and outcome
What Caught Our Attention : Robert J. Frumento first caught our notice in 2013, as a coauthor on a paper retracted with a nonspecific reference to author misconduct. Three years later, Frumento was clearly identified as having fabricated data and a master’s degree , and added three retractions to his name. Now he’s got a fifth retraction, this one citing missing data and a lack of proof that data blinding was performed correctly. Continue reading Caught Our Notice: Columbia researcher up to five retractions
Title: Assessment of coronary heart diseases in diabetics in al-Madinah al-Munawarah
What Caught Our Notice: We’ve seen researchers dinged for adding authors to papers who didn’t participate in the research, but it’s rare to have a notice say co-author signatures were forged. In a recent retraction, the first two authors said the signatures on the the approval document received by the journal do not belong to them. The notice does not indicate which of the remaining two co-authors might be responsible for the forgery. Continue reading Caught Our Notice: Wait…we wrote WHAT paper?
A cardiology journal has retracted a 2016 meta-analysis after the editors had an, ahem, change of heart about the rigor of the study.
The article, “Ivabradine as adjuvant treatment for chronic heart failure,” was published in the
, an Elsevier title. International Journal of Cardiology
The authors, a group at the Federal University of São Paulo, Brazil,
concluded that: Continue reading Reader complaints prompt retraction of meta-analysis of heart-failure drug
A cardiology journal has retracted a paper after the authors were unable to provide correct pathology slides to replace the wrong ones submitted with the original manuscript.
The paper is titled “
Aortic Valve Endocarditis and Coronary Angiography With Cerebral Embolic Protection,” published on April 10, 2017 in The Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Cardiovascular Interventions (JACC:CI). It has not yet been cited, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science.
JACC:CI retracted the paper on Aug. 14, providing this notice: Continue reading Given “wrong pathology slides,” heart journal retracts paper