Category: by subject

Does publicly questioning papers lead to more corrections and retractions?

Paul Brookes, via URMC
Paul Brookes, via URMC

As Retraction Watch readers will likely recall, Paul Brookes ran Science-Fraud.org anonymously until early 2013, when he was outed and faced legal threats that forced him to shut down the site. There are a lot of lessons to be drawn from the experience, some of which Brookes discussed with Science last month.

Today, PeerJ published Brookes’ analysis of the response to critiques on Science-Fraud.org. It’s a compelling examination that suggests public scrutiny of the kind found on the site — often harsh, but always based solidly on evidence — is linked to more corrections and retractions in the literature.

Brookes looked at

497 papers for which data integrity had been questioned either in public or in private. As such, the papers were divided into two sub-sets: a public set of 274 papers discussed online, and the remainder a private set of 223 papers not publicized.

His results?

Continue reading Does publicly questioning papers lead to more corrections and retractions?

Late resveratrol researcher Dipak Das manages to revise and publish paper from the grave

Das, via UConn
Das, via UConn

Follow this timeline, if you would:

  • August 14, 2013: Former UConn researcher Dipak Das, who was found to have committed misconduct, submits a paper to Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity.
  • September 19, 2013: Das dies.
  • October 17, 2013: Das submits revisions to his paper in Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity.
  • October 18, 2013: Paper accepted.
  • January 12, 2014: Paper published.

That would appear to be what the timeline on the paper — which lists Das as corresponding author, along with a Gmail address — says:

Continue reading Late resveratrol researcher Dipak Das manages to revise and publish paper from the grave

Novartis Diovan scandal claims two more papers

diabetes careA complicated story involving Novartis’s valsartan (Diovan) has led to the retraction of two more papers, one cascading from the other.

Last September, The Lancet retracted the Jikei Heart Study after a slew of retractions of related work prompted an investigation of valsartan research. That investigation found evidence of data manipulation and the failure of one researcher to note his Novartis affiliation. The company has apologized.

Here’s one retraction, from Diabetes Care, for “The Shiga Microalbuminuria Reduction Trial (SMART) Group. Reduction of Microalbuminuria in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: The Shiga Microalbuminuria Reduction Trial (SMART):”

Continue reading Novartis Diovan scandal claims two more papers

Scientists, do you feel bullied by critics? These chemists do

eaton
Bruce Eaton, via UC-Boulder
feldheim
Daniel Feldheim, via UC-Boulder

A new site, Stand Up 2 Science Bullies, launched last week:

www.standup2sciencebullies.com is a forum for scientists to share their experience and provide advice pertaining to scientific bullying.  We welcome questions and comments from all scientists including students, faculty, and members of industry.  We sincerely hope that this forum will serve as an informative resource for scientists who feel that they are being treated unfairly by other scientists.

Continue reading Scientists, do you feel bullied by critics? These chemists do

Duplication in physics journal questions key tenet of quantum mechanics

cmpHere’s a physics question: How is it possible to be in two places at the same time?

Answer: Submit the same manuscript twice and hope the editors forget to feed Schrödinger’s cat.

The journal Condensed Matter Physics is retracting a 2013 paper by a Ukrainian scientist who’d published essentially the same paper seven years earlier.The article was titled “On the origin of power-law distributions in systems with constrained phase space,” and was written by an E.V. Vakarin, of the Institute for Condensed Matter Physics, in Lviv UMR 7575 LECA ENSCP-UPMC-CNRS.

According to the abstract: Continue reading Duplication in physics journal questions key tenet of quantum mechanics

Regenerative medicine, regenerative publishing

devbioDevelopmental Biology has retracted a 2009 paper by an group of regenerative medicine specialists who, it seems, were regenerating more than just cells.

The article, titled “The human placenta is a hematopoietic organ during the embryonic and fetal periods of development,” was led by Susan Fisher, of the Institute for Regenerative Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. It has been cited 32 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

According to the abstract: Continue reading Regenerative medicine, regenerative publishing

Some authors seem to cite their own retracted studies. Should we be concerned?

sci eng ethicsSome authors of retracted studies persist in citing their retracted work, according to a new study in Science and Engineering Ethics that calls the trend “very concerning.”

Continue reading Some authors seem to cite their own retracted studies. Should we be concerned?

Weekend reads: Stem cell researchers falsifying data, neuroscience research forgets statistics tests

booksAnother busy week at Retraction Watch. Here’s some of what was happening elsewhere on the web: Continue reading Weekend reads: Stem cell researchers falsifying data, neuroscience research forgets statistics tests

Bogus Western blots lead to retraction of cancer paper

ejpharmA group of Italian researchers has retracted their 2013 paper on colorectal cancer because one of the authors, they, say, was tinkering with the data.

The article, “PBOX-15 induces apoptosis and improves the efficacy of oxaliplatin in human colorectal cancer cell lines,” appeared in the European Journal of Pharmacology in August. The first author was Giuseppina Gangemi, of the University of Salerno.

The paper purported to find that:

Continue reading Bogus Western blots lead to retraction of cancer paper

“Unable to dispel the doubts,” authors lose protein structure paper

ebjA suggestion: If you’re going to use the words “overestimated accuracy” in the title of your paper, you’d better make sure you aren’t guilty of the same yourself.

A group of authors in China has lost their June 2013 paper in the European Biophysics Journal because they appear to have misinterpreted their data.  The paper, “Overestimated accuracy of circular dichroism in determining protein secondary structure,” came from chemists at Fudan University in Shanghai, and purported to find that:

Continue reading “Unable to dispel the doubts,” authors lose protein structure paper