Category: retractioncatchup

Journal retracted at least 17 papers for self-citation, 14 with same first author

A medical journal in Italy has retracted at least 17 papers by researchers in that country who appear to have been caught in a citation scam. The journal says it also fired three editorial board members for “misconduct” in the matter. 

The retractions, from Acta Medica Mediterranea, occurred in 2017 and 2018, but we’re just finding out about them now; 14 involve roughly the same group of neuroscientists, while three are by different authors from some of the same institutions as the first team. 

The journal last year issued two statements on its website about the cases, which it began investigating in 2018. The first, on Feb. 1, 2019 (we think), declared: 

Continue reading Journal retracted at least 17 papers for self-citation, 14 with same first author

Updates: Journal of Climate adds info about withdrawn hot temps paper, chemistry journal corrects retraction notice

We have a few updates on stories we’ve covered.

In June, we wrote about the withdrawal of a paper claiming that temperatures in the last 60 years were warmest in the last 1,000 years. At the time, we reported, following posts by others, that the authors had been made aware of errors in their work and were withdrawing it to correct their calculations.

For several months, the page housing the Journal of Climate study read:

The requested article is not currently available on this site.

It still does. But another page that should house the paper now reads, as commenter Skiphil notes: Continue reading Updates: Journal of Climate adds info about withdrawn hot temps paper, chemistry journal corrects retraction notice

Catching up: PLoS Pathogens apologizes for retracting XMRV-prostate cancer paper before contacting a corresponding author

Last week was a bit of a whirlwind in Retraction Land, thanks to a big study of retractions in PNAS and a lot of resulting press coverage. So we didn’t have a chance to update readers on an ongoing story and discussion involving the PLoS journals.

As ScienceInsider was first to report last week, the editor of PLoS Pathogens, Kasturi Haldar, has now apologized for retracting a paper allegedly showing a link between the XMRV virus and prostate cancer without having contacted the second of two corresponding authors. Retraction Watch readers may recall that Haldar told us on September 19: Continue reading Catching up: PLoS Pathogens apologizes for retracting XMRV-prostate cancer paper before contacting a corresponding author

Catching up: Charges against CFS-XMRV researcher Mikovits dropped, ‘gyres’ author Andrulis publishes another paper

A follow-up on two stories we’ve covered here at Retraction Watch:

1. Criminal charges against chronic fatigue syndrome researcher dropped

The state of Nevada has dropped criminal charges against Judy Mikovits, the embattled chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) researcher whose paper linking the condition to a virus, XMRV, was retracted last year by Science.

As we reported in November, Mikovits was arrested in Ventura County, California on an “out of county warrant” from Washoe County, Nevada, for allegedly taking lab notebooks, a computer, and other material from the Whittemore Peterson Institute in Reno, Nevada, after the WPI fired her in September.

The first report on the dropped charges was apparently by Mikovits’ friend Lilly Meehan on Facebook, news that was picked up by the ProHealth website on June 13 (their post has since been updated). Later that day, ScienceInsider’s Jon Cohen, who has been covering the case closely, reported that Continue reading Catching up: Charges against CFS-XMRV researcher Mikovits dropped, ‘gyres’ author Andrulis publishes another paper

Retractions we haven’t had a chance to cover, part 3: Another duplication and plagiarism edition

As more and more journals enroll in CrossCheck, designed to ferret out cases of plagiarism, it’s to be expected that the number of papers retracted for copying and pasting will increase. Sometimes, that plagiarism is actually duplication of material that the same authors have published elsewhere, while other times it’s good old-fashioned plagiarism of someone else’s work, as these five notices in our latest edition of “Retractions we haven’t had a chance to cover” suggest:

1. Journal of Minimal Access Surgery: When the editor of a journal where you’ve published sends you an email, it’s a good idea to reply. A retraction notice in the April-May issue: Continue reading Retractions we haven’t had a chance to cover, part 3: Another duplication and plagiarism edition

Roundup: A new record? And paper retracts story about Canadian Paxil researcher-turned pol Kutcher

We’ve both been at conferences — Adam at the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists in Savannah, and Ivan at the Council of Science Editors in Baltimore, where he’ll be on a panel today about finding fraud — so we haven’t had a lot of time to run down retractions. But there were a few retraction-related developments in the past few days that we wanted to highlight for Retraction Watch readers:

First, another great investigation by The Cancer Letter and The New York Times, this one into the International Early Lung Cancer Action Program (I-ELCAP) run by Claudia Henschke and David Yankelevitz. The design and conclusions of that trial has been criticized by other pulmonologists.

The new investigation, however, reveals that an October 2008 review of the study found that the researchers couldn’t find 90 percent of the subjects’ consent forms. That, The Cancer Letter notes, could mean a huge number of retractions that could displace Joachim Boldt as the current record holder: Continue reading Roundup: A new record? And paper retracts story about Canadian Paxil researcher-turned pol Kutcher

Retractions we haven’t had a chance to cover, part 2: Duplication and plagiarism edition

Last week, we started a new series at Retraction Watch, “Retractions we haven’t had a chance to cover.” The first edition had sort of an environmental theme. This one has a duplication and self-plagiarism theme. But it’s not always the authors’ fault, as you’ll learn. Continue reading Retractions we haven’t had a chance to cover, part 2: Duplication and plagiarism edition

Retractions we haven’t had a chance to cover, part 1: Fishy fishery management, fluoride and kids’ IQ, and more

via Wikimedia

As many retractions as we cover here at Retraction Watch, there have been far more since we started blogging in August that we haven’t had the chance to report out fully. Some of those have been tips from our loyal readers — which we always appreciate, even if we can’t get to them immediately.

So rather than let all of these retractions molder on a list on our laptops, we’re starting an occasional series. In each post, we’ll highlight about five notices, adding whatever notes we have. If anyone has more information about any of these, we of course welcome it in the comments.

Here are the first five, several of which coincidentally have an environmental theme: Continue reading Retractions we haven’t had a chance to cover, part 1: Fishy fishery management, fluoride and kids’ IQ, and more