Category: by subject

Author who broke into lab to tamper with investigation now up to half a dozen retractions

Bioconjugate ChemistryKarel Bezouška, the scientist who tried to tamper with an investigation into his work by breaking into a lab refrigerator, has had his fifth and sixth papers retracted.

Here’s the notice from Bioconjugate Chemistry for 2012’s “Dimerization of an Immunoactivating Peptide Derived from Mycobacterial hsp65 Using N-Hydroxysuccinimide Based Bifunctional Reagents Is Critical for Its Antitumor Properties:” Continue reading Author who broke into lab to tamper with investigation now up to half a dozen retractions

Dear Retraction Watch readers: We want to grow. Here’s how you can help

anniversaryGentle readers: Since August of 2010 when we launched Retraction Watch, you’ve showed us plenty of love, for which we are ever grateful. Your encouragement, story tips, and critiques are what make the site what it is. It’s great to know that we are providing you with a valuable source of information that has helped focus public attention on scientific misconduct and the process of self-correction.

Now, we’re hoping some of you will consider making a financial contribution. To continue to grow Retraction Watch, we will need resources. Please consider supporting our blog financially by becoming a paying subscriber at a modest level (or, if the spirit moves you, at an immodest level — we’ll take that, too!).

How will we use the money? Continue reading Dear Retraction Watch readers: We want to grow. Here’s how you can help

Weekend reads: STAP stem cell controversy grinds on, plagiarism puzzles

booksAnother busy week here at Retraction Watch, with many in the scientific world glued to their browsers for more information on the latest stem cell controversy. Hear Ivan on the BBC discussing what that story means for post-publication peer review. Elsewhere around the web: Continue reading Weekend reads: STAP stem cell controversy grinds on, plagiarism puzzles

Doing the right thing: Authors retract lubricant paper whose findings they can’t reproduce

wearcoverThe journal Wear — an Elsevier title, not a Condé Nast fashion magazine — has retracted a paper by a pair of Chinese physicists after the researchers were unable to replicate their findings.

The 2009 article, “Microstructure and tribological characterizations of Ni based self-lubricating coating,” was written by authors from the MOE Key Laboratory for Nonequilibrium Synthesis and Modulation of Condensed Matter and the MOE Key Laboratory for Strength and Vibration at Jiaotong University, in Xi’an. It purported to find that: Continue reading Doing the right thing: Authors retract lubricant paper whose findings they can’t reproduce

Why was that lung cancer paper retracted? The “authors’ reason,” of course

jthordisTwo researchers who wrote a review article on the genetics of lung cancer have retracted the paper. But why evidently is for them to know and us to find out.

The article, “Epigenetic aberrant methylation of tumor suppressor genes in small cell lung cancer,” was published in the August 2013 issue of the Journal of Thoracic Disease by authors from Shandong University in China.

According to the retraction notice: Continue reading Why was that lung cancer paper retracted? The “authors’ reason,” of course

Tune into BBC Radio 4 today to hear Ivan talk about latest stem cell controversy, post-publication peer review

Ivan-OranskyIvan is scheduled to be on Inside Science on BBC Radio 4 at 12:30 p.m. Eastern (1630 UK time) to discuss the latest stem cell controversy, and what it says about the state of post-publication peer review. Continue reading Tune into BBC Radio 4 today to hear Ivan talk about latest stem cell controversy, post-publication peer review

Reverse peristalsis for gut journal which disgorges Cleveland Clinic paper for plagiarism

ajg_cimageThe American Journal of Gastroenterology has retracted a 2011 article on colon cancer by a group of Cleveland Clinic researchers after finding “evidence” of plagiarism in the text.

The article, a review, was titled “Molecular Pathways Underlying IBD-Associated Colorectal Neoplasia: Therapeutic Implications,” and has been cited 16 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

Here’s the retraction notice: Continue reading Reverse peristalsis for gut journal which disgorges Cleveland Clinic paper for plagiarism

Researchers invent time machine! (But too late to avoid retraction for duplication)

compinterfaceA common theme in movies involving time travel is that if you meet yourself in the past, you’ll upset the time-space continuum, and cause all sorts of problems. Well, a group of materials scientists in Hong Kong seems to have invented a time machine, and learned that if if you publish a paper that appears to have been published in the future, you’ll suffer a retraction (and correction) for duplicating your own data.

We’ll (try to) explain.

The group in 1997 published a paper in Composite Interfaces titled “Reliability of fiber Bragg grating sensors embedded in textile composites.”

But now comes the following — inscrutable — Corrigendum: Continue reading Researchers invent time machine! (But too late to avoid retraction for duplication)

Senator “unsatisfied” with ORI’s response on recovery of tainted grant money

ori logoMarch has come in like a lion for the folks at the Office of Research Integrity (ORI).

The agency’s director, David Wright, stepped down late last month for reasons that even now remain unclear. And in what seems to be an unrelated development, ORI has managed to draw the ire of Sen. Charles Grassley, who has been among the staunchest watchdogs over federal research integrity.

According to the Des Moines Register, the Iowa Republican

Continue reading Senator “unsatisfied” with ORI’s response on recovery of tainted grant money

So what happened after Paul Brookes was forced to shut down Science-Fraud.org?

Paul Brookes, via URMC
Paul Brookes, via URMC

Retraction Watch readers will likely be familiar with the story of Paul Brookes, the University of Rochester researcher whose identity as the person behind Science-Fraud.org was revealed in January 2013. That revelation — and legal threats — forced Brookes to shutter Science-Fraud.org.

In a new illuminating interview in Science, Brookes discusses the legal threats he faced, how they curtailed his travel, and how his university responded, among other subjects.

The risks faced by whistleblowers are a constant thread on Retraction Watch. So did the site have an effect on his ability to do science? Continue reading So what happened after Paul Brookes was forced to shut down Science-Fraud.org?