Category: by subject

You’ve been dupe’d: Catching up on authors who liked their work enough to use it again

photo by Mark Turnauckas via Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/marktee/

As we’ve noted before, we generally let duplication retractions make their way to the bottom of our to-do pile, since there’s often less of an interesting story behind them, duplication is hardly the worst of publishing sins, and the notices usually tell the story. (These are often referred to — imprecisely — as “self-plagiarism.”)

But that skews what’s represented here — boy, are there a lot of duplication retractions we haven’t covered! — and we might as well be more comprehensive. Plus, our eagle-eyed readers may find issues that we won’t see on a quick scan.

So with this post, we’re inaugurating a new feature here at Retraction Watch, “You’ve been dupe’d.” Every now and then, we’ll gather five of these duplication retractions at a time, and post them so they get into the mix, and into our category listing (see drop-down menu in right-hand column if you haven’t already). Here are the first five: Continue reading You’ve been dupe’d: Catching up on authors who liked their work enough to use it again

And then there were 28: Two more retractions for Diederik Stapel

Achtentwintig.

That’s 28 in Dutch, and is the number of retractions so far racked up by Diederik Stapel, according to our count.

The latest two to come to our attention are in the British Journal of Social Psychology, where Stapel has already had a retraction.

Here’s one notice: Continue reading And then there were 28: Two more retractions for Diederik Stapel

PLoS ONE retracts paper on treatment of tissue disease for lack of ethical approval, erroneous data

PLOS ONE has retracted an article it published earlier this year by a group from Australia who failed to receive adequate ethics approval for their study.

The paper, “Late Complications of Clinical Clostridium Histolyticum Collagenase Use in Dupuytren’s Disease,” came from Warren M. Rozen, Yasith Edirisinghe and John Crock (sorry, irony machine not working today). Dupuytren’s causes thickening of the fascia in the hands and often requires surgery.  In 2011 the FDA approved a treatment for the ailment that involves injections of an enzyme — Clostridium Histolyticum Collagenase, or CHC — into the affected area.

The Aussie article looked at the effects of CHC injections in 12 patients over one year, finding that two of the patients suffered Continue reading PLoS ONE retracts paper on treatment of tissue disease for lack of ethical approval, erroneous data

Hydrogen study has “merit” — just not enough to avoid retraction

The International Journal of Hydrogen Energy has retracted a paper by a group from Malaysia and India who, reading between the lines, couldn’t quite get the low notes to overcome what the high notes lacked. Or something like that.

The paper, “Hydrogen production from sea water using waste aluminium and calcium oxide,” appears to have come out of the quaintly named 7th Petite Workshop on the Defect Chemical Nature of Energy Materials, held in March 2011 in Norway.

According to the notice: Continue reading Hydrogen study has “merit” — just not enough to avoid retraction

Pfizer retracts study of experimental cancer treatment figitumumab for incorrect analyses

Pfizer has retracted a 2009 Journal of Clinical Oncology study purporting to show a benefit of their experimental drug for lung cancer figitumumab after discovering that its clinical lead on the project had done analyses improperly.

Here’s the text of the notice: Continue reading Pfizer retracts study of experimental cancer treatment figitumumab for incorrect analyses

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

Tie Retraction Syndrome? Fat chance

Every now and then, we’re accused of “gotcha journalism” here at Retraction Watch. But here’s the story of a paper that we hope you’ll agree is “gotcha” science of the best kind, involving a different kind of retraction. The research is of, shall we say, a pressing problem known as Tie Retraction Syndrome, or TRS for short, brought to the world’s attention by a group of ophthalmologists in Germany and the UK.

According to the paper in Orbit, TRS is: Continue reading Tie Retraction Syndrome? Fat chance

Loose lips sink paper on company’s experimental pain drug

A bit of intellectual property indiscretion has led to the retraction of a paper by Korean scientists. Although the details are fuzzy, several of the authors are affiliated with a Korean pharma company called SK.

The paper, “A Novel Carbamoyloxy Arylalkanoyl Arylpiperazine Compound (SKL-NP) Inhibits Hyperpolarization-Activated Cyclic Nucleotide-Gated (HCN) Channel Currents in Rat Dorsal Root Ganglion Neurons,” was published in the The Korean Journal of Physiology & Pharmacology earlier this year.

According to the retraction notice: Continue reading Loose lips sink paper on company’s experimental pain drug

Most retraction notices don’t involve research misconduct or flawed data: new study

October, apparently, is “studies of retractions month.” First there was a groundbreaking study in PNAS, then an NBER working paper, and yesterday PLoS Medicine alerted us to a paper their sister journal, PLoS ONE, published last week, “A Comprehensive Survey of Retracted Articles from the Scholarly Literature.”

The study, by Michael L. Grieneisen and Minghua Zhang, is comprehensive indeed, reaching further back into the literature than others we’ve seen, and also including more disciplines: Continue reading Most retraction notices don’t involve research misconduct or flawed data: new study

Collateral damage: What effect do retractions have on scientific funding?

Photo by Howard Lake via flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/howardlake/

A new study from a group of Boston-area economists sheds some light on whether retractions have downstream effects on related fields, particularly when it comes to funding. From the abstract of the working paper, called simply “Retractions,” by  Pierre Azoulay, Jeffrey L. Furman, Joshua L. Krieger, and Fiona E. Murray:

We find that scientifi c misconduct stifle scientists’ pursuit of specifi c research lines, as we would anticipate if retraction events provide new signals of the fidelity of scienti fic knowledge. More centrally, our findings show that Continue reading Collateral damage: What effect do retractions have on scientific funding?