Achtentwintig.
That’s 28 in Dutch, and is the number of retractions so far racked up by Diederik Stapel, according to our count.
The latest two to come to our attention are in the British Journal of Social Psychology, where Stapel has already had a retraction.
Here’s one notice: Continue reading And then there were 28: Two more retractions for Diederik Stapel
PLOS ONE has retracted an article it published earlier this year by a group from Australia who failed to receive adequate ethics approval for their study.
The paper, “Late Complications of Clinical Clostridium Histolyticum Collagenase Use in Dupuytren’s Disease,” came from Warren M. Rozen, Yasith Edirisinghe and John Crock (sorry, irony machine not working today). Dupuytren’s causes thickening of the fascia in the hands and often requires surgery. In 2011 the FDA approved a treatment for the ailment that involves injections of an enzyme — Clostridium Histolyticum Collagenase, or CHC — into the affected area.
The Aussie article looked at the effects of CHC injections in 12 patients over one year, finding that two of the patients suffered Continue reading PLoS ONE retracts paper on treatment of tissue disease for lack of ethical approval, erroneous data
Pfizer has retracted a 2009 Journal of Clinical Oncology study 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.
Here’s the text of the notice: Continue reading Pfizer retracts study of experimental cancer treatment figitumumab for incorrect analyses
The retraction counts keep mounting for two Retraction Watch frequent flyers.
First, Diederik Stapel’s 26th retraction, according to our count. Psychologist Stapel admitted to making up data in dozens of studies, and is also facing a criminal inquiry for misuse of funds.
Here’s the notice: Continue reading Lemus, Stapel each rack up another retraction
A prominent researcher at the University of Florida is under federal investigation for research misconduct and has lost at least one paper as a result of the fraud.
The researcher, Nasser Chegini, was a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the U of Florida until about six months ago, when he retired, according to the chair’s office. Nasser has received at least $4 million in federal grant funding, according to the university.
The retracted paper, “MicroRNA 21: response to hormonal therapies and regulatory function in leiomyoma, transformed leiomyoma and leiomyosarcoma cells,” was published in 2010 by Molecular Human Reproduction. The authors were Qun Pan and Xiaoping Luo and Chegini.
As the notice explains: Continue reading ORI investigating University of Florida ob-gyn researcher accused of misconduct
The authors of a study on cancer incidence and survival in the Dutch migrant community have retracted it after realizing they’d made some errors that significantly affected the results.
But in what seems like an appropriate reward for coming forward, the newly analyzed data, with additional information, will be part of a forthcoming paper in another journal by the same authors.
The original retrospective study came out in May 2011 in the European Journal of Cancer Prevention and found that risk and survival of breast and stomach cancers differed depending on the person’s mother country. The problem was that the study jumbled up many of the participants’ homelands during the analysis.
The authors issued the following retraction: Continue reading Jumbled analysis leads to retraction of cancer study — but also another paper
It’s not often that wade into retractions in the mainstream media on this blog, but in this case, we’ll make an exception.
As Politico and Poynter — and probably others — have reported, CNN has retracted a story about a yet-to-be-published study in Psychological Science claiming to find a link between estrogen and elections (disclosure: Ivan’s wife works at CNN). Specifically, the researchers reported that the well-documented preference among single women for President Obama might be rooted in their sex hormones, while that of married women for Mitt Romney seems to reflect their own ovulatory cycle. Or something like that.
Here’s the money part of the piece, which can still be found floating around on the web: Continue reading Psychological Science in the news again: CNN retracts story on hormone-voting link
Nothing like a little home cooking.
Genetic Vaccines and Therapy (GVT) has retracted a paper by a group of Pakistani authors who recommended one of their colleagues as a reviewer for their manuscript.
That’s not all: According to the journal, the researchers apparently also misappropriated data from a previous study.
The article in question, “Structure based sequence analysis & epitope prediction of gp41 HIV1 envelope glycoprotein isolated in Pakistan,” was published in June 2012. The first author is Syyada Samra Jafri, who we see as being at the University of the Punjab in Lahore. According to the retraction notice: Continue reading HIV paper retracted after authors recommend a colleague as a reviewer
It’s pretty impressive to publish two peer-reviewed papers on complicated vaccination models while you’re still in high school. So it’s not surprising that Nathan Georgette, who grew up outside of Jacksonville, Florida, earned a prestigious fellowship from the Davidson Institute for Talent Development.
But perhaps even more impressive is realizing you’ve made a fundamental error in one of those studies, and retracting it while you’re still a college senior at Harvard. Continue reading High school whiz kid retracts PLoS ONE herd immunity paper
The editors of the World Journal of Emergency Surgery have published an Expression of Concern about a paper after they couldn’t verify one of the three case reports in it.
Here’s the notice for “Necrotizing fasciitis: literature review of contemporary strategies for diagnosing and management with three case reports: torso, abdominal wall, upper and lower limbs,” by surgeons from Split and Zagreb, Croatia: Continue reading Surgery journal issues Expression of Concern when institution can’t confirm case study details “for legal reasons”