A research group in Scotland has retracted a paper in the Biochemical Journal after failed attempts to reproduce a key finding of the study.
Here’s the notice: Continue reading Failure to reproduce result leads to disputed retraction
Category: doing the right thing
Open science journal F1000Research posts its first retraction
An 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
Doing the right thing, 150 years later: Paper retracts editorial condemning Gettysburg Address as “silly”
Okay, so great speechifying isn’t always recognized the first time it’s heard. We’re sure “I Have a Dream” had its detractors at the time. And Homer probably put more than his share of listeners to sleep while reciting the Iliad (that sucker’s LONG, after all).
But when the Patriot & Union, of Pennsylvania, trashed Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address for being “silly,” it found itself on the wrong side of history — oratorically and otherwise — before the ink was dry.
mBio retracts anthrax paper whose authors say they misinterpreted findings
mBio, whose editor, Arturo Casadevall, has contributed greatly to our knowledge about why articles are retracted, has an interesting retraction of its own.
The journal — a publication of the American Society for Microbiology and the American Academy of Microbiology — is pulling a 2011 paper by a trio of researchers from the University of Alabama, Birmingham, Li Tan, Mei Li and Charles L. Turnbough Jr. The article was titled “An Unusual Mechanism of Isopeptide Bond Formation Attaches the Collagenlike Glycoprotein BclA to the Exosporium of Bacillus anthracis.” The paper, which has been cited twice, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web Knowledge, purported to show that:
Continue reading mBio retracts anthrax paper whose authors say they misinterpreted findings
Doing the right thing: Scientists reward authors who report their own errors, says study
We’ve always like to highlight cases in which scientists do the right thing and retract problematic papers themselves, rather than being forced to by editors and publishers. Apparently, according to a new paper by economists and management scholars, scientists reward that sort of behavior, too.
The study by Benjamin Jones of the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University and the National Bureau of Economic Research and colleagues, “The Retraction Penalty: Evidence from the Web of Science,” was published yesterday in Scientific Reports, a Nature Publishing Group title.
The authors lay out what they do: Continue reading Doing the right thing: Scientists reward authors who report their own errors, says study
Two detailed retraction notices correct the cardiology record
Two American College of Cardiology conference abstracts published earlier this year in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC) have been retracted, one because the authors were actually measuring something other than what they reported, and the other because newer software invalidated the results.
Here’s the notice for “Worsening of Pre-Existing Valvulopathy With A New Obesity Drug Lorcaserin, A Selective 5-Hydroxytryptamine 2C Receptor Agonist: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials” by Hemang B. Panchal, Parthav Patel, Brijal Patel, Rakeshkumar Patel, and Henry Philip of East Tennessee State University: Continue reading Two detailed retraction notices correct the cardiology record
Data artifact claims two fruit fly papers from leading UK group — who offer model response
A team of researchers led by Daniel St. Johnston, director of the Gurdon Institute at Cambridge and a prominent developmental biologist in the UK, has lost a pair of articles after finding that their data were unreliable. But rather than “correct” the record with subsequent papers, they’ve withdrawn the problematic work.
To our mind, this is a poster case of doing the right thing by science. We think the notices — as provided by the authors and reported by the journals — pretty much say it all, so we’ll let them speak for themselves, followed by some details St. Johnston shared with us.
The first article, “LKB1 and AMPK maintain epithelial cell polarity under energetic stress,” appeared in 2007 in the Journal of Cell Biology and has been cited 108 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.
According to the retraction notice:
Pamela Ronald does the right thing again, retracting a Science paper
About a month ago, we reported on a retraction by Pamela Ronald, of the University of California, Davis, and colleagues. We noted then that this was a case of scientists doing the right thing. Ronald contacted us after that post ran, and let us know that there would be another retraction shortly. That retraction notice has now appeared, in Science: Continue reading Pamela Ronald does the right thing again, retracting a Science paper
Cancer cell line mixup leads to retraction
At team of researchers at MD Anderson Cancer Center has retracted a paper after realizing that the cell lines they were using weren’t what they thought they were.
Here’s the detailed notice: Continue reading Cancer cell line mixup leads to retraction
Author retracts materials paper for irreproducibility
A materials scientist in Turkey has retracted a paper in the journal Tetrahedron after realizing that there was more to the compounds he was studying than he thought.
The article, “Novel donor–acceptor type thiophene pyridine conjugates: synthesis and ion recognition features,” appeared in April and was written by Fatih Algi, of the Laboratory of Organic Materials at Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University.
Here’s the notice: Continue reading Author retracts materials paper for irreproducibility