Category: clinical study retractions

Same “difference,” as anesthesia paper retracted for plagiarism

Cover, Coverabbild, Titel, TitelbildA group of anesthesiology researchers in China has lost their 2011 paper in Der Anaesthesist because, well, the article wasn’t theirs to begin with.

The paper, “Different anesthesia methods for laparoscopic cholecystectomy,” came from authors at the 309th Hospital of PLA, in Beijing, who purported to report on a randomized trial of 68 patients undergoing laparoscopic colon surgery with either general or spinal (that is, a nerve block) anesthesia. According to the abstract:
Continue reading Same “difference,” as anesthesia paper retracted for plagiarism

Cancer-anorexia paper retracted for “unacceptable” duplication

doveDrug Design, Development and Therapy has retracted a 2013 paper by a group from Italy for duplication.

The retraction notice for the paper, “Drugs in development for treatment of patients with cancer-related anorexia and cachexia syndrome,” fairly bristles with indignation: Continue reading Cancer-anorexia paper retracted for “unacceptable” duplication

Cancer researchers retract two papers in the JBC

jbcTwo cancer researchers who hold a patent on a particular pathway that might be a target for new drugs — and one of whom leads a company that is studying those potential drugs — have retracted two related papers in the Journal of Biological Chemistry (JBC).

The notices for “Kinase suppressor of Ras signals through Thr269 of c-Raf-1” and “The kinase activity of kinase suppressor of Ras1 (KSR1) is independent of bound MEK,” which share H. Rosie Xing and Memorial Sloan-Kettering’s Richard Kolesnick as authors, say the same thing: Continue reading Cancer researchers retract two papers in the JBC

Columbia University misconduct retraction highlights what’s wrong with the retraction process

jcacoverThe Journal of Clinical Anesthesia has a retraction of a 2006 paper by a group from Columbia University that, to our minds, is the poster child for how not to handle such things.

The article, “Dexmedetomidine infusion is associated with enhanced renal function after thoracic surgery,” was written by Robert J. Frumento, Helene G. Logginidou, Staffan Wahlander, Gebhard Wagener, Hugh R. Playford and Robert N. Sladen, who now is chief of critical care at the institution. The paper has been cited 30 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

Why do we bother to name all the authors? Here’s why: According to the retraction notice, one of them — but don’t ask which — is guilty of research misconduct: Continue reading Columbia University misconduct retraction highlights what’s wrong with the retraction process

Case report journal pulls paper on metastatic ovarian cancer with falsified data

crmedThe journal Case Reports in Medicine has retracted a 2012 article by a group of Turkish authors who made up things in the piece.

The paper, “Brain Metastasis as an Initial Manifestation of Ovarian Carcinoma: A Case Report,” came from ob-gyns at Hacettepe University in Ankara, and purported to relate the case of

A 30-year-old gravida 2, para 2 woman admitted to our hospital with complaints of headache, nausea, vomiting, and right-sided blurred vision. She did not report any previous medical history or malignancy. Her neurologic examination revealed a right optic disc edema suggesting a posterior orbital mass. Her cranial computerized tomography (CT) scan showed multiple lesions that are a 6 mm mass on the right parietal lobe, a 16 mm mass on the left occipital, and another 7 mm mass on the left temporal lobe (Figures 1 and 2). All the lesions were hyperintense and surrounded by edema which suggests a metastatic cancer. Her cranial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) also confirmed similar findings suggestive of a metastatic cancer to the brain. Continue reading Case report journal pulls paper on metastatic ovarian cancer with falsified data

Open science journal F1000Research posts its first retraction

f1000researchAn honest error has prompted the first retraction of a paper published in F1000Research, a relatively new open science journal that publishes all articles before peer review and then solicits such review.

Here’s the notice: Continue reading Open science journal F1000Research posts its first retraction

Psychology journal editor has seven articles retracted for duplication or plagiarism

ejopThe editor of a psychology journal has had seven papers in a different psychology journal retracted, for either plagiarism or duplication, although the notices are vague.

Here are the seven articles by Paraskevi Theofilou, editor of Health Psychology Research, in Europe’s Journal of Psychology: Continue reading Psychology journal editor has seven articles retracted for duplication or plagiarism

Retraction appears for Italian cancer specialist facing criminal investigation

jci nov 13The first retraction has appeared for Alfred Fusco, a leading cancer researcher in Italy under criminal investigation for fraud.

Here’s the notice from the Journal of Clinical Investigation: Continue reading Retraction appears for Italian cancer specialist facing criminal investigation

Who’s on first? Paper on “the ethics of being first” retracted because it was…second

value inquiryHas anyone seen our irony meter?

The author of a 2003 study on “the ethics of being first” is retracting it because it turns out he had already published it elsewhere — making it, well, not first.

Here’s the retraction notice for “Surgical Research and the Ethics of Being First,” the Journal of Value Inquiry paper: Continue reading Who’s on first? Paper on “the ethics of being first” retracted because it was…second

And the award for the “three most plagiarized papers” goes to…

twsjThe Retraction Watch archives are full of dubious distinctions — most retractions by a single researcher, longest time between publication and retraction, etc. — but now we have a competition for another: “The three most plagiarized papers.”

That new category comes to us courtesy of a retraction notice in The Scientific World Journal, “Recent Advances in DENV Receptors,” by a group of researchers in China. Here’s the new notice: Continue reading And the award for the “three most plagiarized papers” goes to…