Category: environmental science

Not-smart moves in “smart homes” paper prompt retraction

rsercover213Here’s a thought: If you’re going to write about the “challenges of information and communication technology,” it’s probably best not to use the Internet to plagiarize.

We’re guessing a group of researchers from Serbia is kicking themselves over missing that memo.

The researchers, from Singidunum University in Belgrade, published a 2012 paper in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews titled “Challenges of information and communication technology in energy efficient smart homes.” The work was supported by a grant from the Serbian government.

But according to a new retraction notice: Continue reading Not-smart moves in “smart homes” paper prompt retraction

Sweet nothings: Buggy data force retraction of sugarcane pest paper

eecoverThe journal Environmental Entomology (that’s insects, not words) is retracting a 2010 paper on a sugarcane-loving borer insect by a group from south Florida.

The article, “Life Table Studies of Elasmopalpus lignosellus (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) on Sugarcane,” came from the Everglades Research & Education Center, an arm of the University of Florida.

According to the notice: Continue reading Sweet nothings: Buggy data force retraction of sugarcane pest paper

“Some sentences…are directly taken from other papers, which could be viewed as a form of plagiarism”

plant phys biochemPlant Physiology and Biochemistry has an amusing retraction notice this month that underscores the perils of allowing authors to come up with their own statements.

The paper, “Molecular strategies in manipulation of the starch synthesis pathway for improving storage starch content in plants (review and prospect for increasing storage starch synthesis),” came from a group at Sichuan Agricultural University in China — including its Maize Research Institute — and was published in the December 2012 issue.

Continue reading “Some sentences…are directly taken from other papers, which could be viewed as a form of plagiarism”

Giving thanks for plagiarism detection software: Catching up on retractions for the sincerest form of flattery

Today, on Thanksgiving in the U.S., Retraction Watch is taking a bit of a holiday as we dig into some turkey — not to be confused with retractions from Turkey. We’d like to give thanks for the thousands of Retraction Watch readers all over the world who’ve helped us shine a spotlight on the scientific process, warts and all.

And we imagine that journal editors around the globe are giving thanks to plagiarism detection software such as iThenticate, so today’s post is a roundup of some recent retractions for plagiarism: Continue reading Giving thanks for plagiarism detection software: Catching up on retractions for the sincerest form of flattery

Australian government-funded study of deforestation, climate retracted for intellectual property conflicts

In circumstances we haven’t quite sorted out, an Australian climate researcher has retracted a paper because he didn’t have the right to use data from a now-shuttered government program.

Ravinesh Deo, of the University of Southern Queensland, published “A review and modelling results of the simulated response of deforestation on climate extremes in eastern Australia” in Atmospheric Researchin May of this year.

Last week, this retraction notice appeared: Continue reading Australian government-funded study of deforestation, climate retracted for intellectual property conflicts

Lemus, Stapel each rack up another retraction

The retraction counts keep mounting for two Retraction Watch frequent flyers.

First, Diederik Stapel’s 26th retraction, according to our count. Psychologist Stapel admitted to making up data in dozens of studies, and is also facing a criminal inquiry for misuse of funds.

Here’s the notice: Continue reading Lemus, Stapel each rack up another retraction

Updates: Journal of Climate adds info about withdrawn hot temps paper, chemistry journal corrects retraction notice

We have a few updates on stories we’ve covered.

In June, we wrote about the withdrawal of a paper claiming that temperatures in the last 60 years were warmest in the last 1,000 years. At the time, we reported, following posts by others, that the authors had been made aware of errors in their work and were withdrawing it to correct their calculations.

For several months, the page housing the Journal of Climate study read:

The requested article is not currently available on this site.

It still does. But another page that should house the paper now reads, as commenter Skiphil notes: Continue reading Updates: Journal of Climate adds info about withdrawn hot temps paper, chemistry journal corrects retraction notice

Radioactive fish study retracted for “significant and extensive” corrections

The authors of a study estimating how much radioactive material from two sunken Russian submarines is taken up by fish in the Barents Sea have retracted it, citing the need for “significant and extensive” corrections.

Here’s the notice, from Environmental Pollution: Continue reading Radioactive fish study retracted for “significant and extensive” corrections

Solar energy paper retracted for text, data misuse

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews has retracted a 2008 paper by a group from the United States and Botswana, citing plagiarism and unauthorized use of data.

The article, “Solar chimney power generation project—The case for Botswana,” discussed a project by the Botswanan military to develop a power plant based on the chimney design. The paper is no longer available online, but we found this Wikipedia entry that mentions it: Continue reading Solar energy paper retracted for text, data misuse

Noteworthy: Journal posts all the corrections it wanted in a climate change paper after authors refuse most

In a case of refreshing transparency, a journal has published a detailed list of corrections it requested from authors of a paper on the costs of climate change, even though the authors declined to make most of them.

Earlier this year, the journal Ecological Economics published a paper that cast some doubt on the FUND model, which, as the article explains:

The FUND model of climate economics, developed by Richard Tol and David Anthoff, is widely used, both in research and in the development of policy proposals. It was one of three models used by the U.S. government’s Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon in 2009 (Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, 2010). The Working Group’s “central estimate” 1 of the social cost of carbon (SCC), i.e. the monetary value of the incremental damages from greenhouse gas emissions, was $21 per ton of CO2.

The paper concluded: Continue reading Noteworthy: Journal posts all the corrections it wanted in a climate change paper after authors refuse most