Category: corrections

Japanese universities find pair of researchers guilty of misconduct in 19 papers

Kenji Okajima

We have an update in the case of two Japanese scientists who first came to our attention when they retracted a 13-year-old paper in the Journal of Neuroscience last year. Shortly after that, we learned, thanks to a report in Sankei Shimbun and a helpful Retraction Watch reader, that some 17 papers were being investigated.

It now appears that 19 papers by the two researchers, Kenji Okajima and Naoki Harada, ended up under scrutiny.

Nagoya City University said last week that their investigation had concluded that Okajima and Harada committed misconduct. The university dismissed Harada, whom they found guilty of misconduct in at least eight of the papers. The investigation couldn’t find any evidence that Okajima was directly involved, but suspended him for six months because he supervised the work. Continue reading Japanese universities find pair of researchers guilty of misconduct in 19 papers

How does it feel to have your scientific paper plagiarized? And what can you do about it?

Marya Zilberberg

Plagiarism is a frequent reason for retraction. Today, we’re pleased to present a guest post by Marya Zilberberg, a physician health services researcher and faculty member at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst School of Public Health and Health Sciences. In this post, she describes what it’s like to find out one of your papers has been plagiarized — and how to get satisfaction. Well, sort of.

Right or wrong, peer-reviewed publications in my trade are academic currency. They provide name recognition, invitations to review, edit and speak, and in general make you feel like a part of the “in-crowd.” Of course the most important metric that publications feed are the infamous h-index, which measures how “influential” your studies are by the number of citations they engender. So, like any other artificial grade, it makes sense to engage in intermittent care and watering of your h-index, and mine is pretty good for where I am in my career. Little did I realize that there is an even more important impact metric than the h-index: plagiarism.

Yes, plagiarism. Let me explain. Continue reading How does it feel to have your scientific paper plagiarized? And what can you do about it?

Author who took responsibility for errors in retracted PNAS paper cites it…in error

via Wikimedia

One of the issues we’ve touched on at Retraction Watch is what happens once papers are retracted. A few studies have found that other authors continue to cite those studies anyway, without noting their withdrawal from the literature. A more recent paper found that retractions are linked to a dramatic decline in citations (see last half of post). And we’ve reported on one case in which the authors of a retracted study decided not to cite it at all when they republished their findings elsewhere.

But it seems unusual for an author to cite his or her own retracted work without noting it had been retracted. That’s what happened in a recently published PLoS ONE paper, “Loss of Secreted Frizzled-Related Protein 4 Correlates with an Aggressive Phenotype and Predicts Poor Outcome in Ovarian Cancer Patients.” The second to last paragraph of that paper ends: Continue reading Author who took responsibility for errors in retracted PNAS paper cites it…in error

We’re mostly wrong, but trust us: Our column on mega-corrections for Lab Times

courtesy Nature

Have you seen this correction, from the September 8, 2011 issue of Nature, for “Tumour vascularization via endothelial differentiation of glioblastoma stem-like cells?”

The figures and Supplementary figures of this Letter are affected by errors and improper editing. The correct figures are now provided, with an explanation of the variations. The original Letter has not been corrected online. We apologise for the confusion that our errors could have produced. We admit our negligence in the supervision of technical activity. We acknowledge that image manipulation is not acceptable and that any image modification must be clearly described. None of the alterations have any direct impact on the validity of our conclusions, which were also substantially confirmed in papers published by other independent groups1, 2. Continue reading We’re mostly wrong, but trust us: Our column on mega-corrections for Lab Times

Amid lawsuits, toxicology journal corrects four asbestos papers for failure to cite author links to Georgia-Pacific

The journal Inhalation Toxicology has issued a fascinating correction notice covering four articles on various aspects of asbestos exposure by a group of researchers who failed to note their connection to Georgia-Pacific, the industrial giant that became caught up in a deluge of costly lawsuits over the carcinogenic chemical during the 1980s.

As the notice indicates, the ties weren’t mere tangents, but rather involved obvious — and obviously conflicting — relationships: Continue reading Amid lawsuits, toxicology journal corrects four asbestos papers for failure to cite author links to Georgia-Pacific

The Anil Potti retraction record so far

A 60 Minutes segment Sunday on Anil Potti has drawn national attention to the case, so we thought this would be a good time to compile all of the retractions and corrections in one place.

Duke has said that about a third of Potti’s 40-some-odd papers would be retracted, and another third would have “a portion retracted with other components remaining intact,” so this list will continue to grow. We’ll update it as we hear about new changes.

Retractions: Continue reading The Anil Potti retraction record so far

Coming clean: A major figure in cardiology publishes a lengthy conflict of interest correction in JAMA

Authors’ financial disclosures can be a thorny issue for scientific journals.  There’s often confusion over just what should be listed as a conflict of interest, and when relationships are revealed after papers are published, lack of disclosure sometimes leads to corrections.

For example, the Journal of Cell Science recently published this: Continue reading Coming clean: A major figure in cardiology publishes a lengthy conflict of interest correction in JAMA

Cell runs a lengthy correction, rather than retraction, for image problems

The journal Cell has an interesting — and somewhat puzzling — correction this month that we’ll add to our “mega-correction” file.

At issue is a paper, published in October, from the lab of Harvard’s Stephen Elledge, a noted genetics researcher, whose first author is a post-doc there named Michael Emanuele.

According to the notice, Emanuele (singled out, we note) seems to have been rather careless with the images used in the article, titled “Global Identification of Modular Cullin-RING Ligase Substrates”: Continue reading Cell runs a lengthy correction, rather than retraction, for image problems

PNAS retraction marks second for crystallography group

Two crystallographers who retracted a Structure paper last year have retracted a study about a similar subject in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, for similar reasons.

Here’s the notice for the paper, which has been cited 23 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge: Continue reading PNAS retraction marks second for crystallography group

A mega-correction, but no retraction, in the Journal of Cell Science

In our 2011 year-end post, we promised to keep

…an eye on what may be an emerging trend: The mega-correction. We’ve seen errata notices that correct so many different errors, it’s hard to believe the paper shouldn’t have been retracted. It’s unclear what this means yet, but watch this space for coverage of more examples.

We’ve found another example in the Journal of Cell Science, “Immunobiology of naïve and genetically modified HLA-class-I-knockdown human embryonic stem cells,” originally published in September 2011. The correction begins with what turns out to be a bit of an understatement: Continue reading A mega-correction, but no retraction, in the Journal of Cell Science