The journal Food and Bioproducts Processing has retracted a 2012 article on apple pomace — the remnants of a pressed fruit — by a group from India.
The reason? Turns out the paper “Utility of apple pomace as a substrate for various products: A review,” fell a little to close to the tree.
Here’s the retraction notice: Continue reading Forbidden fruit: apple pomace paper retracted for plagiarism
Identity, which bills itself as “An International Journal of Theory and Research,” has retracted a 2013 article by an Italian researcher who stole the work from another author, then published it twice.
The paper, “Behind the mask: A typology of men cruising for same-sex act,” was ostensibly written by Stefano Ramello, an “independent researcher explores the interactions between space, erotic practices, identity, gender and sexuality.” But as the retraction notice explains, Ramello appears simply to have thrown his own name on top of an earlier paper.
Continue reading Identity theft: Psych journal retracts paper on gay sex for plagiarism
Apologies, mea culpas, regrets. Kids, let this be a warning to you: Don’t plagiarize. You will get caught, and you’ll have to come clean.
Just ask a group of Spanish researchers who published a 2011 paper in Proteome Science, then lost it this past April because they’d stolen text and a figure from previously published work — some, but not all of it, their own.
The retraction notice for “Clinical and technical phosphoproteomic research” tells the story: Continue reading A regretful retraction for plagiarism and duplication in Proteome Science
Last November, we wrote about the retraction of a paper from the Journal of Vinyl and Additive Technology for “pervasive misattribution of data” that rendered “the article’s subsequent discussion and conclusions meaningless and misleading.”
The group now has another retraction, for exactly the same reason. The new notice appears in the Journal of Applied Polymer Science, and the language is identical, because the two journals are both published by Wiley: Continue reading Two retractions in polymer journal, including group’s second for “pervasive misattribution of data”
The journal Protein & Cell has retracted a 2012 paper on fungi-like organisms that took a step in the direction of proper citation — but didn’t quite get there.
The article, “Cryptomycota: the missing link,” came from Krishna Bolla and Elizabeth Jane Ashforth, who are affiliated with Key Laboratory of Pathogenic Microbiology at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Bejing.
But as the retraction notice explains, Bolla wasn’t careful enough about good publishing hygiene: Continue reading “Missing link” fungus-like organisms still missing as paper is retracted
The Journal of Mathematical Physics has retracted a paper by a prolific mathematician in Turkey who doesn’t agree that he plagiarized.
Here’s the notice, for “Homotopy perturbation method to obtain exact special solutions with solitary patterns for Boussinesq-like B(m,n) equations with fully nonlinear dispersion:” Continue reading Journal retracts paper for plagiarism, but mathematician author doesn’t agree
We here at Retraction Watch HQ are always on the lookout for euphemisms for plagiarism (and other misconduct, of course). Among our favorites are “referencing failure” and the journal that allowed researchers to call plagiarism an “approach” to writing.
Here’s a new one that’s sure to do well with voters.
The journal Rejuvenation Research has retracted a commentary for, well, containing too much of the very text it was supposed to be commenting on.
The editorial was by Giorgio Aicardi, of the University of Bologna, in Italy, and the article Aicardi was writing about was titled “Synaptic distributions of GluA2 and PKMζ in the monkey dentate gyrus and their relationships with aging and memory.” That article had been published in the Journal of Neuroscience last year by a group from Mount Sinai in New York.
We’ll let the notice do the explaining: Continue reading Retraction cites “unintended excessive reuse” in commentary — of paper it was praising
What are the best excuses you’ve seen for plagiarism? James Kroll, at the National Science Foundation’s Office of Inspector General, has collected a bunch over the years (click on the image to enlarge): Continue reading “Bird vocalizations” and other best-ever plagiarism excuses: A wrap-up of the 3rd World Conference on Research Integrity
From the Not Saying What You Mean Files: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment has retracted a recent article by authors in Kuwait who appear to have plagiarized, although you couldn’t really tell from the notice.
The paper, “Detection of bacterial endotoxin in drinking tap and bottled water in Kuwait,” appeared in the December 2012 issue of the journal, which is a Springer title. Continue reading Referencing failure (we mean, plagiarism) leads to retraction of water testing paper
We’ve heard a lot of rationalizations for plagiarism on this beat — “I didn’t know I had to cite that text”; “That author said it better than I ever could”; etc. — but here’s a new one for the wall of shame.
Chemistry – A European Journal is retracting a 2012 article, “A New Indicator for Potassium Ions at Physiological pH by Using a Macrocyclic Luminescent Metal Complex,” by a group of Chinese authors who used the cut-and-paste method to put together their manuscript. That’s not unusual. But the notice is:
Continue reading Plagiarism: It’s just an “approach” to writing papers, right?