Category: clinical study retractions

Without “confidence in the conclusions,” group retracts prostate cancer paper

redjournalBack in January, we wrote about the retraction of a paper in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology *Biology* Physics, the first from that journal in its 38-year history.

At the time, the journal’s new editor, Anthony Zietman, of Mass General, told us that he was working on a second retraction. That one has arrived.

The paper, “High-Dose Conformal Radiotherapy Reduces Prostate Cancer–Specific Mortality: Results of a Meta-analysis,” came from a team of radiation oncologists in Brazil, and was published last August.

According to the retraction notice:

Continue reading Without “confidence in the conclusions,” group retracts prostate cancer paper

Retraction 12 appears for Alirio Melendez, this one for plagiarism

alirio_melendezThe twelfth of Alirio Melendez’s 20-something retractions has appeared, in Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology.

Along with the retraction notice, the journal runs letters from the paper’s two co-authors. Melendez writes: Continue reading Retraction 12 appears for Alirio Melendez, this one for plagiarism

ORI, OHRP find “some human subject issues” in Henschke lung cancer studies, but no evidence of misconduct

cancerWe have an update on two papers about lung cancer screening by Claudia Henschke and colleagues that were subject to an Expression of Concern early last year.

The original Expression of Concern in Cancer read, in part: Continue reading ORI, OHRP find “some human subject issues” in Henschke lung cancer studies, but no evidence of misconduct

University of Nebraska clears HIV researchers of misconduct

ajrccmLast August, we reported on an Expression of Concern in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine for a paper on HIV and lung injury. The notice said that the University of Nebraska, home to several of the paper’s authors, had begun an inquiry.

Today, the university issued a statement on the case, clearing the researchers of misconduct: Continue reading University of Nebraska clears HIV researchers of misconduct

Heart attack: Two cardiology retractions, plus a notice of duplication, in three different journals

circ researchWe’ve come across three notices in cardiology journals this week, so although they’re unrelated, we’re gathering them here.

Item 1, from Circulation Research: Continue reading Heart attack: Two cardiology retractions, plus a notice of duplication, in three different journals

Alirio Melendez notches retractions 10 and 11

jbcmarch13coverFormer National University of Singapore and University of Liverpool scientist Alirio Melendez has two more of the 20-something retractions suggested by the investigations into his work. Both appear in the Journal of Biological Chemistry.

Here’s the notice for “FcγRI-triggered generation of arachidonic acid and eicosanoids requires iPLA2 but not cPLA2 in human monocytic cells:” Continue reading Alirio Melendez notches retractions 10 and 11

ORI rules in longstanding University of Washington misconduct case

andrew_aprikyan
Andrew Aprikyan

A case of alleged misconduct at the University of Washington in Seattle may finally be over. The Office of Research Integrity released its findings following an investigation into the work of Andrew Aprikyan, a former hematology researcher at the university.

The Aprikyan case has dragged on for a decade. In 2010, the university fired the scientist after a court denied his appeals based on allegations that they had denied him due process. As the Seattle Times reported at the time:  Continue reading ORI rules in longstanding University of Washington misconduct case

Editor on retraction details: “I do not think this is the business of anyone but our journal, please”

early education developmentWhose business are the reasons behind a retraction?

Our readers will no doubt know by now that we think they’re basically everyone’s — at least if journals want us to believe that they’re interested in maintaining the integrity of the scientific record. But not all editors seem to agree. Hank Edmunds, for example, didn’t in early 2011, telling us, “It’s none of your damn business.” A chemistry journal editor said, in a similar vein, “the purpose of keeping these retraction notices slim is not to produce too much detail.”

Now, a psychology journal editor joins those ranks. Here’s the notice in question: Continue reading Editor on retraction details: “I do not think this is the business of anyone but our journal, please”

Update: Lewandowsky et al paper on conspiracist ideation “provisionally removed” due to complaints

frontiersLast week, we covered the complicated story of a paper by Stephan Lewandowsky and colleagues that had been removed — or at least all but the abstract — from its publisher’s site. Our angle on the story was how Frontiers, which publishes Frontiers in Personality Science and Individual Differences, where the study appeared, had handled the withdrawal. It happened without any notice, and no text appeared to let the reader know why the paper had vanished.

Today, Frontiers posted a note to readers on top of the paper’s abstract: Continue reading Update: Lewandowsky et al paper on conspiracist ideation “provisionally removed” due to complaints

Why publishers should explain why papers disappear: The complicated Lewandowsky study saga

frontiersLast year, Stephan Lewandowsky and colleagues posted a paper, scheduled for an upcoming issue of Psychological Science, with a, shall we say, provocative title:

NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax

An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

In an interview last year with Lewandowsky, NPR gathered some of the reactions to the paper — which was formally published two days ago — from those it profiled: Continue reading Why publishers should explain why papers disappear: The complicated Lewandowsky study saga