Category: clinical study retractions

Journal bans authors following investigation confirming plagiarism

Screen Shot 2015-12-07 at 4.46.43 PMA journal has banned three researchers after an investigation confirmed that a “significant portion” of the text of their paper on screening for urinary tract infections had been plagiarized.

The researchers Sreenivasan Srirangaraj, Arunava Kali and MV Pravin Charles, who are all based in India, won’t be allowed to publish in Australasian Medical Journal in the future, according to the retraction note.  

The retraction note takes the form of a letter from the Editor in Chief of the journal:

Continue reading Journal bans authors following investigation confirming plagiarism

Paper pulled when authors backtrack on identifying mad cow disease in Texas

Journal food protectionA journal is pulling a paper that reported a grain sample in Texas tested positive for mad cow disease after the authors asked to change the results to say the sample contained “animal protein prohibited for use in ruminant feed.”

Shortly after the paper was published in October, the authors contacted the Journal of Food Protection to retract the finding that the grain sample tested positive for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). After review, the journal decided to retract the entire paper, with the authors’ agreement, citing changes that “significantly affect” the findings.

JFP scientific editor Lauren Jackson filled us in on some details: Continue reading Paper pulled when authors backtrack on identifying mad cow disease in Texas

JAMA retracts osteoporosis paper with manipulated data

Screen Shot 2015-12-29 at 10.48.49 AMA JAMA study on an inexpensive treatment for osteoporosis has been retracted because the first author falsified or fabricated data. We’ve been expecting this one: An investigation at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto, the bone researcher’s former workplace, had already revealed issues with the paper.

An internal memo sent to staff (available in full here) in October explained that the investigation had found “unequivocal evidence of systematic data manipulation” by Sophie Jamal, who had already resigned from her positions at WCH and the University of Toronto.

The study appeared to show that nitroglycerin ointment could have a small positive effect on bone mineral density in postmenopausal patients. It’s been cited 30 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s web of Knowledge. (That’s two more times than when we last reported on the paper: It was cited once by the investigation, and once by a paper that was published earlier in October, but had not yet been indexed.)

Here’s the retraction note for “Effect of Nitroglycerin Ointment on Bone Density and Strength in Postmenopausal Women: A Randomized Trial:”

Continue reading JAMA retracts osteoporosis paper with manipulated data

Study on eye imaging device withdrawn for German duplication

current eye researchAn article describing a Japanese imaging device that measures eye surface temperature to help diagnose ocular conditions has been retracted because it contained duplicated material that the authors had published previously in German.

Here’s the September retraction note for “Measurement of Dynamic Ocular Surface Temperature in Healthy Subjects Using a New Thermography Device,” published in the journal Current Eye Research in 2012: Continue reading Study on eye imaging device withdrawn for German duplication

Neuroanatomy paper riddled with errors pulled by authors

Journal-of-NeurosurgeryAuthors have retracted a paper from the Journal of Neurosurgery that contained many errors, including mislabeled figures, anatomical errors, and mismatched citations. They said that the paper’s preparation was rushed and not all authors had a chance to verify that it was accurate.

Two of the authors of the paper had previously contacted the journal to request the paper be withdrawn. Jo Ann Eliason, communications manager for the Journal of Neurosurgery, said that the withdrawal request came too late, since the paper had already been published online: Continue reading Neuroanatomy paper riddled with errors pulled by authors

Eight retractions for fake reviews lead journal to suspend author nominations

home_cover (1)

An investigation has uncovered fake reviews on 21 papers submitted to the Journal of the Renin-Angiotensin Aldosterone System.

After taking a second look at accepted papers with an author-nominated reviewer, the journal discovered that the listed reviewers on the 21 papers, though real people, had never submitted a report.

Eight of the papers have been retracted by JRAAS. The rest had not yet been published, and have now been rejected, explains a commentary by the journal editors. The journal has also stopped allowing authors to nominate reviewers.

The retraction note — the same on all eight papers — explains how the authors “seriously compromised” the review process:

Continue reading Eight retractions for fake reviews lead journal to suspend author nominations

Oh no he didn’t! Misattributed Aristotle work leads to correction in highly cited cancer paper

jcoJohn Shannon may be a mere undergrad at Hillsdale College in Michigan, but he knows enough about history to be surprised that Aristotle had written an entire book about economics that Shannon had never heard of.

That curiosity led to the discovery that a highly cited paper about pricing in cancer drugs was missing a reference to a rather relevant source about a treatise by the Greek philosopher, prompting the Journal of Clinical Oncology to correct the paper. But to Shannon, a missing reference is not the only problem with the paper.

As he notes in an essay in Public Discourse, Shannon’s interest was piqued when he noticed this passage in a 2013 paper in the Journal of Clinical Oncology on the fair price — “just price,” or Justum Pretium — of cancer drugs: Continue reading Oh no he didn’t! Misattributed Aristotle work leads to correction in highly cited cancer paper

Authors retract antioxidant paper after more work reverses their conclusion

Screen Shot 2015-12-03 at 12.29.58 PM

The authors of a paper about the benefits of an antioxidant found in blueberries known as pterostilbene have retracted it after their subsequent research suggested the antioxidant might actually be harmful.

The paper presented evidence that the antioxidant might help rats after heart attack, in part by inhibiting cell death (apoptosis). But according to the retraction note, more work

found that pterostilbene might induce apoptosis in the heart and can be harmful, and we are now focusing on the phenomenon.

The rest of the retraction note for “Pterostilbene attenuates inflammation in rat heart subjected to ischemia-reperfusion: role of TLR4/NF-κB signaling pathway,” published in the International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, suggests that the authors would consider republishing their findings if they became more confident in the data:

Continue reading Authors retract antioxidant paper after more work reverses their conclusion

Science flags immune-boosting paper under investigation

F1.mediumScience magazine has issued an expression of concern for a paper on the discovery of a new immune-boosting protein. The paper’s findings, which received some press coverage when they came out last spring, are now under investigation by Imperial College London.

The expression of concern follows a correction noting a Western blot mix-up. Science Editor in Chief Marcia McNutt told us last month that the mistake resulted from “carelessness” on the part of the authors. But now, an investigation at Imperial College London — where Philip Ashton-Rickardt led the research — is formally looking into the findings.

That investigation is ongoing, according to the expression of concern (signed by McNutt):

Continue reading Science flags immune-boosting paper under investigation

Authors retract meningitis paper over permission — but data are in a public database

plos1A study characterizing subtypes of the bacteria that cause bacterial meningitis is being retracted after the authors didn’t have permission to publish the data, even though the data itself remain available in a public database.

The paper, in PLOS ONE, relied on a laboratory collection of patient samples. In October, the authors retracted it because they “did not have permission” from the laboratory “to publish the data in their current form.” The data — anonymized — are now available at PubMLST.

Here’s the retraction notice, published on October 16: Continue reading Authors retract meningitis paper over permission — but data are in a public database