A group of neuroscientists has retracted a paper published earlier this last year in Diabetes after realizing that a figure that took up a whole page of the paper may not have been quite right.
Here’s the notice for “Blockade of receptor for advanced glycation end products in a model of type 1 diabetic leukoencephalopathy”: Continue reading Authors retract Diabetes paper after submitting it “without knowledge of inherent errors”
Last week was a busy one at the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI), at least judging by how many cases they posted. There were sanctions against researchers at Ohio State, Texas Tech, and the Gladstone Institutes, as we reported. And it turns out there was another case closed, of a former Harvard dental school research fellow, The Scientist reports.
According to the ORI, Martin Biosse-Duplan “engaged in research misconduct in research supported by National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant R01 AR054450.”
The misconduct involved a lab presentation and two published abstracts: Continue reading Former Harvard dental school researcher committed misconduct: ORI
Milena Penkowa, the former University of Copenhagen scientist found by her university to have embezzled grant funds and to have possibly committed misconduct in 15 papers, has another retraction.
An international panel released its findings in July, as Nature reported then: Continue reading Retraction three for Milena Penkowa, for diabetes-exercise study
A group of cancer researchers formerly centered at Johns Hopkins have retracted two more studies. The previous two retracted papers — one of which was the focus of a lawsuit — were about prostate cancer, while the new retractions are of papers about colon cancer.
Here’s the notice for one paper: Continue reading Retractions three and four for Hopkins cancer biomarker group
Emerging Infectious Diseases, a CDC journal, is retracting a 2010 paper about swine flu by a group of Minnesota researchers who acknowledged misinterpreting their results.
The study, a letter titled “Triple Reassortant Swine Influenza A (H3N2) Virus in Waterfowl,” claimed to shed new light on how flu viruses might jump between species: Continue reading Paper on how swine flu might spread to birds retracted for error
Alirio Melendez, a former National University of Singapore immunologist whose story we’ve been following here since a retraction in September of last year, committed misconduct on an “unprecedented” scale, according to the university, involving more than 20 papers.
Nature’s Richard van Noorden has the scoop:
After a 19-month investigation, the National University of Singapore (NUS) today says that it has determined that one of its former scientists, the immunologist Alirio Melendez, has committed “serious scientific misconduct”. The university found fabrication, falsification or plagiarism associated with 21 papers, and no evidence indicating that other co-authors were involved in the misconduct, it says.
Melendez has retracted five papers so far, as we’ve reported, but NUS wouldn’t give the whole list. They tell Nature: Continue reading NUS: Melendez committed “serious scientific misconduct,” but don’t expect to get any details
The Journal of the American College of Cardiology, or JACC, has issued expressions of concern for three papers by Don Poldermans, the Dutch cardiologist who was fired earlier this year amid allegations of misconduct.
Cardiobrief’s Larry Husten had the story first.
The, um, heart of the matter is that neither the investigators at Erasmus Medical Center, Poldermans’ former institution, nor the JACC editors, can say whether the researchers conduct rose to the level of fabricating data. As the Notice of Concern states: Continue reading Concern — in triplicate — arrives for Poldermans papers
Sometimes, retraction notices offer tantalizing clues, but no real information. Take the case of a paper called “Florid osseous dysplasia,” which was published last year in Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology by a group at Mumbai’s Nair Hospital Dental College and retracted recently.
Here’s the notice, which is suggestive but doesn’t say much: Continue reading Dental papers retracted after investigations find “issue with respect to misconduct”
Last month, we brought you news that Pfizer had retracted a paper in the Journal of Clinical Oncology
purporting to show a benefit of their experimental drug for lung cancer figitumumab after discovering that its clinical lead on the project had done analyses improperly.
There’s been another retraction, of a related paper, in the British Journal of Cancer, “Pre-treatment levels of circulating free IGF-1 identify NSCLC patients who derive clinical benefit from figitumumab.” Here’s the notice: Continue reading Another retraction for Pfizer’s experimental cancer treatment figitumumab
As we — and others — have written, retracted articles don’t necessarily creep off to some little island somewhere never to be heard from again. After all, the electronic versions of about a third of retracted papers aren’t marked as retracted. Sometimes, like Napoleon, those papers return from exile to wreak havoc: They get cited as if they had never been retracted.
To wit: The Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology has published a letter to the editor regarding a 2012 article by a group of Italian researchers. The topic of the paper in question was “Perioperative pregabalin for postoperative pain control and quality of life after major spinal surgery.”
That happens to have been an area of interest for one Scott Reuben, a Massachusetts anesthesiologist and pain specialist turned federal inmate who was, Continue reading After retracted study’s cited, editors ask, “time to add scientific integrity to the downside of print on paper?”