Category: by subject

“Technical but fundamental errors” lead to retraction of brain tumor paper

neuro-oncologyThe journal Neuro-Oncology has retracted a 2011 paper by a group of researchers in Japan who had purported to find a genetic mechanism for how fluorescence can be used to diagnose certain brain tumors.

The paper, “Enhanced expression of coproporphyrinogen oxidase in malignant brain tumors: CPOX expression and 5-ALA–induced fluorescence,” reported measurements using quantitative real-time (qRT)-PCR.

As the retraction notice explains: Continue reading “Technical but fundamental errors” lead to retraction of brain tumor paper

How does a paper get published without the alleged corresponding author knowing?

jmm iopThe Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering ran a retraction yesterday that’s left us scratching our heads.

The paper, “Wettability-gradient-driven micropump for transporting discrete liquid drops,” was published on February 8 of this year.  For a paper published in a journal run by the Institute of Physics, the retraction notice reads like a mix of Hindenburg (read: disaster) and Heisenberg (read: uncertainty): Continue reading How does a paper get published without the alleged corresponding author knowing?

Update: Microbiologists face two more retractions for Northern blot problems

microbiologyWe have an update on a case we reported last week involving four papers in two different journals. The Journal of Bacteriology retracted two papers by Carlos Barreiro and colleagues, in notices that referred to the fact that

…identical bands for the 16S rRNA probe controls in the Northern blots were reported to correspond to experiments using different strains and experimental conditions in articles published in this journal and in Microbiology over a period of 5 years…

We checked with the editor of Microbiology, Agnes Fouet, who tells us: Continue reading Update: Microbiologists face two more retractions for Northern blot problems

Half of researchers have reported trouble reproducing published findings: MD Anderson survey

plosoneReaders of this blog — and anyone who has been following the Anil Potti saga — know that MD Anderson Cancer Center was the source of initial concerns about the reproducibility of the studies Potti, and his supervisor, Joseph Nevins, were publishing in high profile journals. So the Houston institution has a rep for dealing in issues of data quality. (We can say that with a straight face even though one MD Anderson researcher, Bharat Aggarwal, has threatened to sue us for reporting on an institutional investigation into his work, and several corrections, withdrawals, and Expressions of Concern.)

We think, therefore, that it’s worth paying attention to a new study in PLOS ONE, “A Survey on Data Reproducibility in Cancer Research Provides Insights into Our Limited Ability to Translate Findings from the Laboratory to the Clinic,” by a group of MD Anderson researchers. They found that about half of scientists at the prominent cancer hospital report being unable to reproduce data in at least one previously published study. The number approaches 60% for faculty members: Continue reading Half of researchers have reported trouble reproducing published findings: MD Anderson survey

BioMed Central retracts study it published twice while acquiring journal

jdmdYesterday, we wrote about the retraction of a paper that ended up published despite the fact that peer reviewers had recommended rejecting it. Today, we have the (short) tale of a paper retracted because the publisher posted it a second time while they were buying acquiring the journal where it appeared.

Here’s the notice for “The association between depression, socio-economic factors and dietary intake in mothers having primary school children living in Rey, South of Tehran, Iran,” published in the Journal of Diabetes & Metabolic Diseases: Continue reading BioMed Central retracts study it published twice while acquiring journal

Nanotech researcher SK Sahoo notches fifth retraction

acta biomaterialiaNanotech researcher SK Sahoo, whom as we reported in February lost four papers from Acta Biomaterialia for what the journal called “highly unethical practices,” has actually retracted five papers from that journal.

According to a notice for “Enhanced cellular uptake and in vivo pharmacokinetics of rapamycin loaded cubic phase nanoparticles for cancer therapy” that appears in the June issue along with the other four: Continue reading Nanotech researcher SK Sahoo notches fifth retraction

“Bird vocalizations” and other best-ever plagiarism excuses: A wrap-up of the 3rd World Conference on Research Integrity

What are the best excuses you’ve seen for plagiarism? James Kroll, at the National Science Foundation’s Office of Inspector General, has collected a bunch over the years (click on the image to enlarge): Continue reading “Bird vocalizations” and other best-ever plagiarism excuses: A wrap-up of the 3rd World Conference on Research Integrity

Mislabeled sample leads to a chain reaction of physics retractions

physrevbTwo different teams of physicists have retracted papers from Physical Review B after realizing that a sample used in the paper published first — and which formed the basis of the second paper — was mislabeled.

Here’s the notice for the first paper, “s-wave superconductivity in barium-doped phenanthrene as revealed by specific-heat measurements,” by Jianjun Ying of the University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, and colleagues: Continue reading Mislabeled sample leads to a chain reaction of physics retractions

Cossu-UCL follow-up: PLOS ONE paper to be corrected

Cossu
Cossu

We have a follow-up from last week’s story about a University College London (UCL) investigation into the work of Giulio Cossu that found errors but no “deliberate intention to mislead.”UCL said it will not make the full report available: Continue reading Cossu-UCL follow-up: PLOS ONE paper to be corrected

Two Journal of Bacteriology papers retracted for data duplication spanning five years

j bacteriolA group of bacteria researchers in Spain and Germany has lost two papers in the Journal of Bacteriology after the journal found evidence that they had reused figures.

The two notices, for “Heat Shock Proteome Analysis of Wild-Type Corynebacterium glutamicum ATCC 13032 and a Spontaneous Mutant Lacking GroEL1, a Dispensable Chaperone” and “Transcriptional Analysis of the groES-groEL1, groEL2, and dnaK genes in Corynebacterium glutamicum: Characterization of Heat Shock-Induced Promoters,” say the same thing: Continue reading Two Journal of Bacteriology papers retracted for data duplication spanning five years