Antioxidants & Redox Signalling has issued much more detailed retraction notice for a paper it pulled last year that was marred by duplicate data. As we reported then, the journal’s initial notice for the 2011 article, titled “Inhibition of LXRa-dependent steatosis and oxidative injury by liquiritigenin, a licorice flavonoid, as mediated with Nrf2 activation,” was … Continue reading Redox, redux: Journal pulls paper over data problems
The authors of a paper in the Journal of Biological Chemistry (JBC) have retracted it, but don’t ask us why. This being the JBC, the retraction notice for “Human T-cell Leukemia Virus Type I Tax Down-regulates the Expression of Phosphatidylinositol 3,4,5-Trisphosphate Inositol Phosphatases via the NF-κB Pathway” is the very definition of opaque:
A retraction notice appeared a few months ago in the Biophysical Journal: This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy). This article has been retracted at the request of Edward Egelman, Editor-in-Chief. The editors have noted that there is a substantial overlap of figures and text between this Biophysical Journal … Continue reading Why editors should stop ignoring anonymous whistleblowers: Our latest LabTimes column
We’ve obviously gotten plenty of mileage out of our conversation last January with L. Henry Edmunds, the grumpypants editor of the Annals of Thoracic Surgery who told us that the reason behind an opaque retraction notice in his journal was “none of [our] damn business.” Still makes us chuckle. That episode came to mind recently … Continue reading Florida group loses second hypertension paper, but retraction notice stays mum on why
One of the themes we’ve hit hard here at Retraction Watch is that there is tremendous variation in how journals deal with retractions. Some make notices crystal clear, while others seem to want to make them as opaque as possible. Some editors go out of their way to publicize withdrawals, while others bury them and won’t talk about them … Continue reading Do editors like talking about journals’ mistakes? Nature takes on retractions
Last week, we reported on an uniformative retraction notice in Molecular Biology and Evolution (MBE), an Oxford University Press (OUP) title, that the publisher wanted $32 to read. To OUP’s credit, they quickly acknowledged that the retraction hadn’t been handled properly. Earlier this week, OUP’s senior publisher for journals Cathy Kennedy followed up with some … Continue reading Oxford University Press clarifies policy: All retraction notices will be open access
Sometime last year, the University of Zurich’s Erik Postma was reading a paper in Science titled “Additive Genetic Breeding Values Correlate with the Load of Partially Deleterious Mutations” when he realized something. The authors, led by Joseph Tomkins of the University of Western Australia, had made a mistake. Postma set to writing a “Technical Comment,” the … Continue reading Science genetics paper retracted after “unfortunate mistake”
We have updates on the two mysterious Journal of Neuroscience retractions we reported on yesterday. One is that we have learned that there is a university investigation into the work of one of the teams that retracted one of the studies. More on that in a bit. Two, the journal’s editor, John Maunsell, responded to … Continue reading Update on Journal of Neuroscience retractions: Authors being investigated. Plus, editor explains why notices say nothing
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology has retracted a 2009 abstract, but don’t ask us why. The retraction notice for “Children with asthma and no URTI, more commonly have rhinovirus in their exhaled breath, than in mucous,” is another one we’ll file under “opaque“:
There was more news today about papers co-authored by Silvia Bulfone-Paus, whose lab at Research Centre Borstel has been under investigation for scientific misconduct. The EMBO Journal, which we reported last month had accepted the retraction of a 2005 Bulfone-Paus paper that has been cited 37 times, published the retraction notice for the study today: … Continue reading In retraction notice, Bulfone-Paus “declares” data and conclusions confirmed; journals accept six more retractions