Category: clinical study retractions

Study finds many authors aren’t sharing data when they publish — and leads to a PLOS ONE retraction

clinical chemistryA new study in Clinical Chemistry paints an alarming picture of how often scientists deposit data that they’re supposed to — but perhaps not surprisingly, papers whose authors did submit such data scored higher on a quality scale than those whose authors didn’t deposit their data.

Ken Witwer, a pathobiologist at Hopkins, was concerned that a lot of studies involving microarray-based microRNA (miRNA) weren’t complying with Minimum Information About a Microarray Experiment (MIAME) standards supposedly required by journals. So he looked at 127 such papers published between July 2011 and April 2012 in journals including PLOS ONE, the Journal of Biological Chemistry, Blood, and Clinical Chemistry, assigning each one a quality score and checking whether the authors had followed guidelines.

What he uncovered wasn’t pretty — and has already led to a retraction. From the abstract: Continue reading Study finds many authors aren’t sharing data when they publish — and leads to a PLOS ONE retraction

Lyme disease diagnostics review retracted for plagiarism

Medical reviewA review paper published in the Serbian journal Medicinski pregled (Medical review) has been retracted for plagiarising a 2002 paper published in the Croatian Journal of Infection (or Infektološki glasnik).

The retraction note (in Serbian only) in the current issue (vol. 65, issue 11-12) of Medicinski pregled, published by the Society of Physicians of Vojvodina of the Medical Society of Serbia reads: Continue reading Lyme disease diagnostics review retracted for plagiarism

Stapel watch reaches 45 retractions

stapel_npcKeeping up with the retraction count of Diederik Stapel is proving to be a, well, staple of this job. Four more retractions brings the figure to 45.

The articles in question are: Continue reading Stapel watch reaches 45 retractions

McGill committee says Nature figures were “intentionally contrived and falsified”

msaleh
Maya Saleh, via McGill

An associate professor at Montreal’s McGill University is correcting two papers, one of them in Nature, after a university committee found evidence of falsification, Retraction Watch has learned.

Concerns had been raised about four papers by Maya Saleh and colleagues: Continue reading McGill committee says Nature figures were “intentionally contrived and falsified”

Correction for MD Anderson’s Aggarwal, cancer researcher whose work is under investigation

jmm113coverBharat Aggarwal, the highly cited MD Anderson Cancer Center researcher who has confirmed to us that his work is under investigation by the institution, has a correction of his work in the Journal of Molecular Medicine. Troubled images are to blame — as they have been in previous retractions, and at least one other correction, of Aggarwal’s papers.

The paper, “Celastrol suppresses invasion of colon and pancreatic cancer cells through the downregulation of expression of CXCR4 chemokine receptor,” was published in December 2010 and cited 15 times since, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

Here’s the notice: Continue reading Correction for MD Anderson’s Aggarwal, cancer researcher whose work is under investigation

This is 40 (and 41): More retractions for Diederik Stapel

stapel_npcIt turns out we missed two more recent retractions from Diederik Stapel. They were nestled in the table of contents of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology that contained four retractions we covered last week.

The notices, for “Method matters: Effects of explicit versus implicit social comparisons on activation, behavior, and self views” (cited 48 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge) and “From seeing to being: Subliminal social comparisons affect implicit and explicit self-evaluations” (cited 95 times), both say the same thing: Continue reading This is 40 (and 41): More retractions for Diederik Stapel

The 39 retractions: Stapel’s count rises again

stapel_npcIt’s getting hard to keep up. A day ago, we noted that Diederik Stapel’s retraction count had risen to 38. But later in the day, we heard about number 39, from the European Journal of Social Psychology.

Here’s the notice for “Making sense of war: Using the interpretation comparison model to understand the Iraq conflict”: Continue reading The 39 retractions: Stapel’s count rises again

Plague paper partially retracted

iandi213coverPartial retractions — as opposed corrections or the full monty —  are unusual events in scientific publishing. But they appear to come in twos.

The journal Infection and Immunity, the work of whose editor, Ferric Fang, is much admired by this blog, has a fascinating example of the breed in its February issue.

The article in question, by a group from the University of Kentucky in Lexington led by Susan Straley, appeared online in 2007. It was titled “yadBC of Yersinia pestis, a New Virulence Determinant for Bubonic Plague,” and, as the words suggest, involved a gene marker for the virulence of plague. Or so it initially seemed.

But according to the partial retraction, the researchers are walking back one of their main claims. Consider: Continue reading Plague paper partially retracted

Stapel retraction count rises to 38

stapel_npcDiederik Stapel’s 35th through 38th retractions have appeared, all in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Two of the notices — for “The self salience model of other-to-self effects: Integrating principles of self-enhancement, complementarity, and imitation” (cited 31 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge) and “Distinguishing stereotype threat from priming effects: On the role of the social self and threat-based concerns” (cited 20 times) — read as follows: Continue reading Stapel retraction count rises to 38

Look ma, no guidelines! Paper on unpublished fetal surgery recommendations retracted

clinperinatcoverClinics in Perinatology has a rather intriguing retraction.

The paper in question was a June 2012 review by a group of researchers at the University of California, San Francisco’s division of pediatric surgery, titled “Maternal-Fetal Surgery:  History and General Considerations.”

According to the retraction notice: Continue reading Look ma, no guidelines! Paper on unpublished fetal surgery recommendations retracted