by subject – Page 343 – Retraction Watch

Penkowa Journal of Physiology Expression of Concern turns into a retraction

We’ve been trying to follow the complicated case of Milena Penkowa, who resigned her post at the University of Copenhagen in December amidst allegations that she had committed scientific misconduct and misused grant money. Today, we learned that one of the three papers that Penkowa had coauthored and were subject to Expressions of Concern has been retracted. Here’s the notice: Continue reading Penkowa Journal of Physiology Expression of Concern turns into a retraction

The way science should work: A swift, clearly worded retraction in G&D, after legitimate questions by another group

A retraction appeared online last week in Genes & Development (G&D) that neatly brings together a few recent Retraction Watch threads: Whether retraction is appropriate for a failure to replicate, and whether retraction notices should give enough detail for readers to know what actually happened.

The retraction notice, for “Alternative splicing produces high levels of noncoding isoforms of bHLH transcription factors during development,” by Rahul N. Kanadia and Constance L. Cepko, reads: Continue reading The way science should work: A swift, clearly worded retraction in G&D, after legitimate questions by another group

The new math: How to up your citations (hint: duplication). Plus a correction for Naoki Mori

Here’s a good way to increase the number of times your work is cited: Publish studies three times.

On second (or third) thought, maybe not: The Journal of Steroid Biochemistry & Molecular Biology has retracted a pair of articles by three Japanese researchers who apparently liked their own work so much they decided to submit it, and submit it—and submit it again.

Here’s the notice for the first paper, a 2004 publication titled “Vitamin D receptor (VDR) promoter targeting through a novel chromatin remodeling complex,” by Shigeaki Kato, Ryoji Fujiki and Hirochika Kitagawa, fairly well-known molecular endocrinologists at the University of Tokyo: Continue reading The new math: How to up your citations (hint: duplication). Plus a correction for Naoki Mori

Anil Potti resurfaces at South Carolina cancer center

Anil Potti, the oncologist who has been forced to retract four papers because of results that could not be reproduced, and resigned last fall from Duke, has a new job. He’s joined the Coastal Cancer Center, an oncology practice with four offices in South Carolina and one in North Carolina.

~~The Duke Fact Checker was apparently the first to report the news.~~ The Cancer Letter, which has been out front on the Potti story for a year, first reported the news.*

It’s not surprising that Potti’s Coastal Center bio leaves out any mention of his troubled research and the fact that he faked a Rhodes scholarship on a grant application. Investigations into what happened at Duke are ongoing. Continue reading Anil Potti resurfaces at South Carolina cancer center

Applied Mathematics Letters posts apology for retracting Intelligent Design-friendly paper

Applied Mathematics Letters, which agreed to apologize to Intelligent Design-friendly Texas professor Granville Sewell and have its publisher, Elsevier, pay $10,000 in legal fees, has posted the text of its apology (Of note: Elsevier has the apology behind a paywall. So if 318 people fork over the $31.50 fee, they’ll have their $10,000 back.): Continue reading Applied Mathematics Letters posts apology for retracting Intelligent Design-friendly paper

No academic matter: Study links retractions to patient harm

Flawed research that leads to retractions is a problem for editors, publishers and the scientific community. But what about patients?

In a recent issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics, R. Grant Steen asks the question — and answers it in the affirmative.

We’ve heard from Steen before; he has written two recent papers on the scope of retractions, finding that the number of retractions seems to be rising faster than the number of publications on the shelves.

This time, Steen takes a crack at ferreting out what he calls “harm by influence,” the admittedly subtle effect that troubled studies have on downstream research. His findings certainly raise concerns. Continue reading No academic matter: Study links retractions to patient harm

Geology retraction unearths a dead co-author and plagiarized image of “Himalayan” rock actually from Norway

The journal Geology has retracted a paper that, when it was published in May 2010, was hailed as a major step forward in understanding what happened when the Indian and Asian land masses collided millions of years ago. As The Hindu reported when the paper was first published:

Dr. [Anju] Pandey and her colleagues used sophisticated analytical techniques to demonstrate the occurrence of relict majorite, a variety of mineral garnet, in rocks collected from the Himalayas. Majorite is stable only under ultra-high pressure conditions, meaning that it must have been formed very deep down in the Earth’s crust, before surfacing millions of years later.

“Our findings are significant because researchers have disagreed about the depth of subduction of the Indian plate beneath Asia,” said Dr. Pandey.

In fact, the previous depth estimates conflicted with estimates based on computer models. The new results suggest that the leading edge of the Indian plate sank to a depth around double that of previous estimates.

“Our results are backed up by computer modelling and will radically improve our understanding of the subduction of the Indian continental crust beneath the Himalayas,” said Pandey, according to an NOC release.

It turns out, however, that as best as anyone can tell, the key data are from Norway, not the Himalayas, and were published in 1998 by another group. According to the retraction notice, which appears in the May 2011 issue (link to 1998 paper added): Continue reading Geology retraction unearths a dead co-author and plagiarized image of “Himalayan” rock actually from Norway

Update on Journal of Neuroscience retractions: Authors being investigated. Plus, editor explains why notices say nothing

We have updates on the two mysterious Journal of Neuroscience retractions we reported on yesterday. One is that we have learned that there is a university investigation into the work of one of the teams that retracted one of the studies. More on that in a bit.