Category: psychiatry

Drugmaker accused of omitting side effect data from 2003 Risperdal paper

cover7607A 2003 paper may have left out potentially “significant” data on the long-term side-effects of an antipsychotic drug used in children, according to a former head of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

As reported by the Toronto Star, David Kessler is alleging that Janssen, the maker of Risperdal (and owned by Johnson & Johnson), omitted data about the risks of the drug: In particular, that boys who use it over a long period may be at risk of growing breasts.

There’s anecdotal evidence of the side effect. One family claimed the drug had caused their son to grow a pair of 46 DD-sized breasts in a lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson, reported the Wall Street Journal in February. They won, to the tune of $2.5 million. The suit is apparently just one of 1,200 like it.

The abstract of the paper, “Prolactin levels during long-term risperidone treatment in children and adolescents,” published in The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, suggests that levels of a key hormone aren’t a problem in the long term:

Continue reading Drugmaker accused of omitting side effect data from 2003 Risperdal paper

Psych paper falls afoul of journal’s plagiarism policy (hint: don’t plagiarize)

jcpharmacopharmThe Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology has retracted a 2011 paper on depersonalization disorder by a pair of authors in Azerbaijan who got a bit too familiar with their source material without proper attribution. And the journal has offered its readers a handy — if depressingly obvious — admonition about publication ethics.

The article, “Lamotrigine in the immediate treatment of outpatients with depersonalization disorder without psychiatric comorbidity. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study,” by researchers at the Central Mental Clinic for Outpatients of Baku City, purported to find that: Continue reading Psych paper falls afoul of journal’s plagiarism policy (hint: don’t plagiarize)

Retraction appears for psychiatrist sought for arrest in alleged fraud scheme

malafosse
Alain Malafosse, via University of Geneva

Want bogus data, million-dollar fraud allegations and a scientist on the lam? We give you Alain Malafosse.

The British Journal of Psychiatry has retracted a June 2013 paper by Malafosse and his colleagues on the genetics of bipolar disorder in children because Malafosse allegedly fabricated key data in the study.

The article, “Childhood maltreatment and methylation of the glucocorticoid receptor gene NR3C1 in bipolar disorder,” purported to find that people with bipolar disorder who had experienced more, and more severe, abuse early in life were more likely to show epigenetic changes. According to the abstract:

Continue reading Retraction appears for psychiatrist sought for arrest in alleged fraud scheme

“Authors, please call us. Pretty please? OK, we’re going to retract your paper!”

dovelogoThe title of this post isn’t exactly how the one-sided conversation between the editors of Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment and a group of researchers went. But it seems likely it was pretty close.

Here’s an expression of concern for “A cross-sectional study on perception of stigma by Chinese schizophrenia patients:” Continue reading “Authors, please call us. Pretty please? OK, we’re going to retract your paper!”

Researchers repeat retracted study, republish in same journal sans first author

biol psychWe’ve been following the case of Amine Bahi, a neuroscience researcher in the United Arab Emirates who has managed something unusual in the annals of Retraction Watch: Three different retractions for three completely different reasons. One was for “legal issues,” another was for lack of IRB approval, and the third was for using RNAs from the wrong species.

Now, Bahi’s co-authors have repeated the last of those studies with the right RNAs, and have republished their paper in the same journal, Biological Psychiatry — but without Bahi.

The retraction notice for “Blockade of Protein Phosphatase 2B Activity in the Amygdala Increases Anxiety- and Depression-Like Behaviors in Mice” now includes this final paragraph: Continue reading Researchers repeat retracted study, republish in same journal sans first author

Psychiatric Times reinstates retracted essay on “satanic ritual abuse”

psych timesLast month, we brought readers the story of a retraction in December from Psychiatric Times, of an essay by Richard Noll that included this passage:

Despite the discomfort it brings, we owe it to the current generation of clinicians to remember that an elite minority within the American psychiatric profession played a small but ultimately decisive role in the cultural validation, and then reduction, of the Satanism moral panic between 1988 and 1994. Indeed, what can we all learn from American psychiatry’s involvement in the moral panic?

That essay was republished on March 19, along with an editor’s note:

Continue reading Psychiatric Times reinstates retracted essay on “satanic ritual abuse”

Psychiatric Times retracts essay on “satanic ritual abuse”

psych timesSome Retraction Watch readers may recall this episode, recounted in a recent op-ed by Lew Powell:

During the 1980s and early ’90s a wave of nonexistent “satanic ritual abuse” claims shut down scores of day cares such as Little Rascals, McMartin in California and Fells Acres in Massachusetts. In virtually every instance the charges lacked any basis in fact. Today no reputable psychologist or other social scientist will argue otherwise. The defendants were innocent victims of a “moral panic” that bore striking similarities to the Salem witch hunts 300 years earlier.

Psychologist Richard Noll found the charges troubling too, so he wrote a piece last year for Psychiatric Times because: Continue reading Psychiatric Times retracts essay on “satanic ritual abuse”

When 1 equals 2, the result is a retraction

bmcrnA group of psychiatric researchers in Norway has lost their 2013 paper in BMC Research Notes on the effects of antipsychotic medications on the brain after discovering that they’d botched their imaging analyses.

The article, “Does changing from a first generation antipsychotic (perphenazin) to a second generation antipsychotic (risperidone) alter brain activation and motor activity? A case report,” came from a trio of scientists at the University of Bergen and Haukeland University Hospital, also in Bergen. According to the abstract of the paper, which was published last May:

Continue reading When 1 equals 2, the result is a retraction

The brains in Spain fall mainly on…Iran?

braininjWe’ve come across some odd examples of plagiarism in this job, from the fellow who tried to build a CV on the back of another researcher’s work, to the education researcher who, from what we can tell, preferred lifting the work of others to writing her own papers. Here’s another odd one for the pile.

A group of Iranian scholars has lost a paper in Brain Injury because they lifted it wholesale from a previously published article. What’s harder to get one’s mind around, however, is that the two papers were looking at culturally-specific aspects of brain injury. Except that one wasn’t.

The retracted paper, “Frontal acquired brain injury, substance abuse and their common psychological symptoms in the Iranian population,” appeared in 2011. Here’s the abstract, which is still available on the journal’s website (we’ll note that although the abstract is free for all, the retraction notice was behind a pay wall — an error, according to the publisher, which they remedied when we contacted them):  Continue reading The brains in Spain fall mainly on…Iran?

You’ve been dupe’d: Catching up on authors who liked their work enough to use it again

photo by Mark Turnauckas via Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/marktee/

As we’ve noted before, we generally let duplication retractions make their way to the bottom of our to-do pile, since there’s often less of an interesting story behind them, duplication is hardly the worst of publishing sins, and the notices usually tell the story. (These are often referred to — imprecisely — as “self-plagiarism.”)

But that skews what’s represented here — boy, are there a lot of duplication retractions we haven’t covered! — and we might as well be more comprehensive. Plus, our eagle-eyed readers may find issues that we won’t see on a quick scan.

So with this post, we’re inaugurating a new feature here at Retraction Watch, “You’ve been dupe’d.” Every now and then, we’ll gather five of these duplication retractions at a time, and post them so they get into the mix, and into our category listing (see drop-down menu in right-hand column if you haven’t already). Here are the first five: Continue reading You’ve been dupe’d: Catching up on authors who liked their work enough to use it again