by subject – Page 42 – Retraction Watch

‘We decided to play it safe.’ Journal doesn’t retract paper even though the authors neglected to mention that they didn’t do the experiments themselves.

An eye journal has issued an expression of concern for a paper on glaucoma that, given the litany of problems with the data, could well have been retracted. Not least of the issues: The authors admitted to using an outside firm to conduct experiments they’d tried to pass off as having done themselves.

The article, “Fisetin rescues retinal functions by suppressing inflammatory response in a DBA/2J mouse model of glaucoma,” came from a group at People’s Hospital of Rizhao. It appeared online last February in Documenta Ophthalmologica, the journal of the International Society for Clinical Electrophysiology and Vision.

According to the researchers:

Reviewers asked authors to change their study design. It apparently didn’t go well.

In what the editor of a psychiatry journal says in an unusual case, the authors of a paper on treatments for depression have retracted it after being alerted to “inconsistencies” stemming from a change to their study design that the peer reviewers had requested.

Here’s the retraction notice, in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease:

Two spectrometry papers retracted, one for “intolerable” mistakes. The authors don’t agree.

Saudi researchers have lost a pair of papers in a spectrometry journal for errors the editors found fatal but the authors apparently dismiss as trivial.

The articles appeared in the Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry, published by the Royal Society of Chemistry in the United Kingdom. The principal author on both papers is Mohammad Gondal, of the King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals in Dharhan. According to his website, Gondal is a highly decorated physicist, with

‘The methodology does not generate the results’: Journal corrects accounting study with flawed methods

What a difference a Yi,t=β0+β1IOˆi,t+β2Xi,t+ωt+εi,t.Yi,t=β0+β1IO^i,t+β2Xi,t+ωt+εi,t. makes.

The authors of a 2016 paper on institutional investing have corrected their article — to include the equation above — in the wake of persistent questions about their methodology. The move follows the protracted retraction earlier this year of a similar article in The Accounting Review by the duo, Andrew Bird and Stephen Karolyi, of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, for related problems.

The bottom line, it seems, is that Bird and Karolyi appear to be unable adequately to explain their research methods in ways that stand up to scrutiny.

The correction involves a paper published in The Review of Financial Studies, from Oxford University Press, titled “Do institutional investors demand public disclosure. According to the statement (the meat of which is behind a paywall):

After ten years of being in limbo, a chemistry paper is retracted

In May of this year, François-Xavier Coudert, a chemist at PSL University in Paris, had a question about a paper in Chemistry: A European Journal.

This @ChemEurJ paper has been “early view” (a.k.a. “ASAP”) for 10 years now, online but not published in any issue. How can that even happen?? @Wiley_Chemistry pic.twitter.com/OE3fj1sakp
— FX Coudert (@fxcoudert) May 19, 2019

Several days later, he had an answer — sort of — along with an apology for readers from Haymo Ross, the journal’s editor in chief.

Thirty years after publication, a paper cited by creationists is retracted

A paper by a Russian researcher who has been dogged by allegations of fraud has been retracted, 30 years to the month after its publication, and 25 years after the journal published a strongly critical letter to the editor.

The 1989 paper on the genetics of wild timber voles by Dmitrii A. Kuznetsov in the International Journal of Neuroscience was, according to Dan Larhammar, a professor of molecular cell biology at Uppsala University in Sweden and now president of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, being used by creationists as evidence for their beliefs. Larhammar published a letter to the editor about the paper in 1994 that concluded:

Former Johns Hopkins postdoc sanctioned by Feds for data fabrication

A former postdoc at Johns Hopkins University has been hit by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) with a four-year ban on receiving federal research funding after being found guilty of misconduct in several studies and her doctoral dissertation.

We covered problems with several of Deepti Malhotra’s papers in February of 2016. At the time, Hopkins refused to tell us if the issues stemmed from misconduct. But nearly four years later, the ORI has announced that Deepti Malhotra, while at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health:

What’s the hernia? Authors lose surgery paper for miscounting cases

A group of pediatric surgeons in China has lost their 2016 paper on a technique for repairing abdominal defects in children because they apparently had trouble keeping those defects straight.

The article, “A new technique for extraperitoneal repair of inguinal hernia,” appeared in the Journal of Surgical Research, an Elsevier title. The authors reported that a laparoscopic method of repairing inguinal hernias in children was superior to conventional, open surgery. According to the authors, they had nearly 1,900 patients to prove their point.

But as the retraction notice indicates, the numbers didn’t add up.

61 retractions for controversial psychologist Hans Eysenck? That’s a significant underestimate, says his biographer

In a recent Retraction Watch guest post on the “Eysenck affair,” James Heathers notes the extraordinary possibility that as many as 61 Hans Eysenck publications might be retracted. I believe this figure is a significant underestimate.

This reckoning has been a long time coming. The issues surrounding Eysenck’s 1980s/1990s collaboration with Ronald Grossarth-Maticek and their unbelievable results linking personality to health outcomes have been known for decades. Many eminent researchers, including Tony Pelosi and Louis Appleby, had lined up to criticise this research even while it was still ongoing.

In 2010, I published a lengthy biography of Eysenck, Playing with fire, that detailed the context for this collaboration. In the final full chapter, I explained what prompted Eysenck to team up with this outsider figure and laid bare the extent of Eysenck’s deep and longstanding relationship with the tobacco industry. It was backed by extensive archival research and interviews with key players (including two days with Grossarth-Maticek). I had hoped it would provoke a reappraisal and remedial action. But the impact was minimal.

Former Northwestern psychology prof has paper subjected to an expression of concern

A paper by Ping Dong, a former researcher at Northwestern who left her post less than a year after having a paper retracted from Psychological Science, has been subjected to an expression of concern.

The 2017 paper, in the Journal of Consumer Research, claimed to show that “Witnessing Moral Violations Increases Conformity in Consumption.” It has been cited just twice, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Knowledge.

The expression of concern reads:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: