Category: by subject

Following investigation, U Ottawa lab retracting four papers in the Journal of Biological Chemistry

A University of Ottawa lab has been forced to retract four papers from the Journal of Biological Chemistry (JBC) after an investigation of image manipulation.

According to an email from a university official obtained by Retraction Watch, a university investigative committee had “found substance to the allegations,” although it claimed it could not disclose details “due to their confidentiality.” The university requested that the JBC withdraw a November 2005 paper, and left it to the journal to “determine whether the other articles should also be withdrawn or if they can be corrected. ” And they took the issue to the agency that funded the work: Continue reading Following investigation, U Ottawa lab retracting four papers in the Journal of Biological Chemistry

Zhiguo Wang retractions appear in the Journal of Cellular Physiology

Last month, we reported that the last three of six promised retractions by Zhiguo Wang, who was a researcher at the Montreal Heart Institute until the results of an Institute investigation forced him to resign in early September — would be in the Journal of Cellular Physiology. They’ve now appeared.

Here are the three notices, which are far more informative than the Journal of Biological Chemistry was — and which make it clear Wang acted alone: Continue reading Zhiguo Wang retractions appear in the Journal of Cellular Physiology

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: What retractions say about scientific transparency

photo by Cea via Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/centralasian/

Recently, Ivan has been invited to speak to two groups — the Danforth Center, in St. Louis, and CrossRef members, at their annual meeting in Cambridge, Mass. — about retractions and Retraction Watch. He gave variations on the talk below, “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: What Retractions Tell Us About Scientific Transparency.” In it, he discusses a number of cases we’ve uncovered at Retraction Watch, and offers some solutions for improving transparency. Use the arrows at the bottom of the slides to click through the presentation. Continue reading The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: What retractions say about scientific transparency

Materials paper retracted after post-doc’s plagiarism

The Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine has retracted a 2011 paper after it was determined that the first author, then a post-doc at the University of Michigan, had plagiarized from another publication.

The first author of the retracted article, “Functionalization of titanium based metallic biomaterials for implant applications,” was the post-doc, Rahul Bhola, who received his PhD from the Colorado School of Mines and went to Michigan to work in the lab of Catherine Krull.

Fruit of that relationship was the paper — and here’s how that worked out: Continue reading Materials paper retracted after post-doc’s plagiarism

Retraction comes as death of PI leads to lost records

The Journal of Experimental Medicine has retracted a 2011 article after the principal investigator’s home institution suggested that the PI might have manipulated his data. Complicating matters, the PI in this case died two weeks after the paper appeared and his notes have gone missing — making an affirmative declaration of fraud or honest error difficult.

Here’s the notice: Continue reading Retraction comes as death of PI leads to lost records

Physics retraction as rogue authors add six colleagues to a paper they didn’t write

Forged authorship — in which researchers add the names of people who’ve had nothing to do with a paper, either to boost its chance of being published, pay tribute (in a misguided way), or both — has become a common theme at Retraction Watch. But we’re pretty sure we haven’t seen a case involving as many faked authors as a now-retracted paper in Europhysics Letters. Here’s the notice: Continue reading Physics retraction as rogue authors add six colleagues to a paper they didn’t write

Ghost authorship? Two Meccanica retractions as an author’s work is plagiarized by disappearing scientists

About two years ago, Marc Duflot, a research engineer at Cenaero, heard a disturbing tale from a collaborator. The collaborator, it seemed, had been asked to review a paper submitted to a journal, and noticed that it was remarkably similar to a paper by Duflot. Duflot’s collaborator recommended that the journal reject the paper, and it did. Duflot tells Retraction Watch (we added a link to the paper in question):

Then, several months later, I discovered that the…paper had been submitted and accepted in Meccanica. If I remember correctly, I discovered it by searching the web with Google Scholar with terms related to my field of expertise.

So in January 2010, Duflot wrote to the editors of Meccanica to alert them to the plagiarism by the authors, M. Garzon and D. Sargoso of the University of Madrid. He concluded his email:

I am deeply disappointed by the fraudulent behaviour of M. Garzon and D. Sargoso. Strangely, I cannot find any mention of these two people on the web neither of the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Madrid. Otherwise, I would have reported this to the head of their department.

An editorial assistant got back to him: Continue reading Ghost authorship? Two Meccanica retractions as an author’s work is plagiarized by disappearing scientists

Hormesis? Information scant in unhelpful retraction notice (Psst: It was plagiarism)

The latest issue of Dose-Response, the official journal of the International Dose-Response Society, has one of the uninformative retraction notices we’ve come to hate for their inscrutability: Continue reading Hormesis? Information scant in unhelpful retraction notice (Psst: It was plagiarism)

Retraction (in all but name) of flu paper raises eyebrows

When is a retraction not a retraction? Why, when it’s a correction, of course — like the one the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases issued this month:

In the article Reassortment of Ancient Neuraminidase and Recent Hemagglutinin in Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 Virus (P. Bhoumik, A.L. Hughes), errors were made in selection of the hemagglutinin (HA) and neuraminidase (NA) sequences for the initial and subsequent data sets. As a result, the authors incorrectly concluded that the NA gene of the pandemic (H1N1) 2009 virus is of a more ancient lineage than the HA. Other researchers (and the authors) have not been able to reproduce the findings when using HA and NA matched pairs from viruses chosen on the basis of geography and time and correctly have pointed out errors in the data set that make the original conclusions invalid.

In other words, 1) the article was based largely on an error and 2) the central point could not be reproduced, two flaws that, at least in our book, usually constitute grounds for retraction.

The paper was written by Priyasma Bhoumik and Austin Hughes. Bhoumik, now a post-doc at Harvard, at the time was a PhD student at the University of South Carolina, where Hughes is a senior faculty member. Funding for the work came to Hughes from the National Institutes of Health, according to the original article.

We spoke with Hughes, who said that in this case, correction versus retraction is a distinction without a difference: Continue reading Retraction (in all but name) of flu paper raises eyebrows

Florida group loses second hypertension paper, but retraction notice stays mum on why

We’ve obviously gotten plenty of mileage out of our conversation last January with L. Henry Edmunds, the grumpypants editor of the Annals of Thoracic Surgery who told us that the reason behind an opaque retraction notice in his journal was “none of  [our] damn business.”

Still makes us chuckle.

That episode came to mind recently when we learned of a new retraction, this one in the journal Perfusion, involving the same lead researcher, anesthesiologist Felipe Urdaneta, whose work Edmunds had pulled. Continue reading Florida group loses second hypertension paper, but retraction notice stays mum on why