Category: by subject

Chutzpah: Authors blame PLOS ONE for failing to find plagiarism in paper on Botulinum toxin

plosonelogoHoly Chutzpah, Batman! A team of researchers in India has retracted their 2012 paper in PLoS One on botulinum toxin for plagiarism — while blaming the journal for failing to use its “soft wares” to catch the plagiarism.

The article, “Small-Molecule Quinolinol Inhibitor Identified Provides Protection against BoNT/A in Mice,” was written by a group from the Defence Research and Development Establishment, in Madhya Pradesh.

According to the retraction notice: Continue reading Chutzpah: Authors blame PLOS ONE for failing to find plagiarism in paper on Botulinum toxin

Journal retracts two chemistry papers for plagiarism

commnonlinscinumsimCommunications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation has retracted a pair of articles by a group of chemists from Iran and the United States after finding evidence of plagiarism in the papers.

The researcher team included authors from Islamic Azad University, Ferdowski University of Mashhad and, perhaps somewhat incongruously, Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana.

The first paper, “An analytical approach to the stability of solitary solutions of cubic–quintic coupled non-linear Schrödinger equations,” appeared in 2009 and has been cited twice, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge. (Question: is an article that will ultimately be retracted for plagiarism considered to exist in a state of un-retracted retractionness, such that by detecting the plagiarized text the article immediately ceases to be?):

Continue reading Journal retracts two chemistry papers for plagiarism

Should science put up with sloppiness?

labtimes513That’s the question we pose in our newest column in LabTimes, based on some recent cases we’ve covered:

The implication seems to be that as long as researchers can pass off their mistakes as sloppiness, rather than intentional misconduct, they should be forgiven and carry on their work. We’re with that logic, to a point; after all, we’ve argued before that due process is much too important, no matter how apparently damning the evidence is. And as long as corrections and retraction notices are detailed, telling the whole story, science and the public are served. Continue reading Should science put up with sloppiness?

Author retracts materials paper for irreproducibility

tetrahedronA materials scientist in Turkey has retracted a paper in the journal Tetrahedron after realizing that there was more to the compounds he was studying than he thought.

The article, “Novel donor–acceptor type thiophene pyridine conjugates: synthesis and ion recognition features,” appeared in April and was written by Fatih Algi, of the Laboratory of Organic Materials at Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University.

Here’s the notice: Continue reading Author retracts materials paper for irreproducibility

Fredrickson-Losada “positivity ratio” paper partially withdrawn

am psychIn 2005, Barbara Fredrickson and Marcial Losada published a paper in American Psychologist making a bold and specific claim:

…the authors predict that a ratio of positive to negative affect at or above 2.9 will characterize individuals in flourishing mental health.

The paper made quite a splash. It has been cited 360 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge, and formed the basis of a 2009 book by Fredrickson, Positivity: Top-Notch Research Reveals the 3 to 1 Ratio That Will Change Your Life.

But something didn’t sit right with Nick Brown, a psychology grad student at the University of East London. He found the paper’s claims wanting, and contacted Alan Sokal — yes, that Alan Sokal, who published a fake paper in Social Text in 1996. Sokal agreed, and he, Brown, and Harris Friedman published a critique of the paper in July of this year in American Psychologist. Its abstract: Continue reading Fredrickson-Losada “positivity ratio” paper partially withdrawn

That’ll do it: Physics paper retracted for a “pattern that is unphysical”

j phys dLast December, we brought you the story of a math paper that was retracted because it made “no sense mathematically.” Today, we have that retraction’s cousin: A physics paper retracted because some of the data are “unphysical.”

Here’s the notice for “Room temperature ferromagnetism in pure and Co- and Fe-doped CeO2 dilute magnetic oxide: effect of oxygen vacancies and cation valence,” which was published in April 2011 in the Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics: Continue reading That’ll do it: Physics paper retracted for a “pattern that is unphysical”

Your bad: Journal yanks paper for plagiarism and duplication, and points fingers

molecules-logoHere’s a warning to would-be plagiarizers: Don’t submit to the journal Molecules unless you have no problem being called out by name when you’re busted.

Consider: The journal is retracting a paper it published earlier this year after learning that the article contained verbatim text — and lots of it — from previously published papers.

The article, “Cytotoxicity and Anti-Inflammatory Activity of ethylsulfanyltriazoloquinazolin,” was written by a group that included Amira M. Gamal-Eldeen, of the National Research Center in Cairo, Egypt. Why single out Dr. Gamal-Eldeen, you ask? Read for yourself: Continue reading Your bad: Journal yanks paper for plagiarism and duplication, and points fingers

Management prof with 12 retractions loses his license to teach

Ulrich Lichtenthaler
Ulrich Lichtenthaler

Ulrich Lichtenthaler, the management professor at the University of Mannheim who has had a dozen papers retracted, has now lost his license to teach.

The WHU-Otto Beisheim School of Management, where Lichtenthaler earned his PhD, announced the move Friday, saying (courtesy Google Translate): Continue reading Management prof with 12 retractions loses his license to teach

It’s an epidemic! Another group does the right thing, retracting neuroscience paper

jneurosciAs the bumper sticker says, “Regime change starts at home.” Seems to be the case with scientists these days.

This month we have seen commendable instances of researchers retracting papers after identifying flaws in their own data — an outbreak of integrity that has us here at Retraction Watch applauding. (We’ve even created a new category, “doing the right thing,” at the suggestion of a reader.)

Today’s feel-good story comes from the lab of Karl Svoboda, of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Janelia Farm Research Campus, in Ashburn, Va. Back in June, Svoboda and his colleagues published “Whisker Dynamics Underlying Tactile Exploration,” in the Journal of Neuroscience. Here’s what the abstract had to say about the study:

Continue reading It’s an epidemic! Another group does the right thing, retracting neuroscience paper

A Cancer Cell mega-correction for highly cited researcher who retracted paper earlier this year

cancer cell 9-13MIT’s Robert Weinberg, a leading cancer researcher who retracted a Cancer Cell paper earlier this year for “inappropriate presentation” of figures, has corrected a different paper in the same journal.

Here’s the correction for “Species- and Cell Type-Specific Requirements for Cellular Transformation:”

We were apprised recently of errors made in the assembly of Figures 2B, 3A, 4A, 4B, and 5G, resulting in the incorporation of incorrect representative images in these figures. These errors occurred during the electronic assembly and have no bearing on the conclusions of the study. The corrected figures are shown below. The authors apologize for any possible confusion this might have caused.

Here’s the original Figure 2 and caption, followed by the new version (read all the way to the end of the post for more details on how this came to light): Continue reading A Cancer Cell mega-correction for highly cited researcher who retracted paper earlier this year