We’ve heard about a lot of barriers to retraction — author and editor stubbornness being the most frequent. But now there’s a new one: A publisher that wants to charge authors $650 to retract. University of Colorado librarian Jeffrey Beall — who produces a frequently updated list of predatory publishers — first wrote about the … Continue reading Publisher wants $650 to retract duplicated study
Sometimes, retraction notices offer tantalizing clues, but no real information. Take the case of a paper called “Florid osseous dysplasia,” which was published last year in Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology by a group at Mumbai’s Nair Hospital Dental College and retracted recently. Here’s the notice, which is suggestive but doesn’t say much:
Retraction Watch readers may recall the case of Silvia Bulfone-Paus, a researcher at Germany’s Research Center Borstel who was a frequent subject of posts in the early days of this blog. Bulfone-Paus has had to retract 13 papers amid investigations into allegations of image manipulation. To briefly recap: In May 2010, several months after concerns … Continue reading Funding agency sanctions Bulfone-Paus and former postdoc
In August of last year, Mladen Pavičić, chair of physics at the University of Zagreb’s Faculty of Civil Engineering, published a paper in Physical Review Letters on quantum teleportation, “Near-Deterministic Discrimination of All Bell States with Linear Optics.” Just six days later, after hearing from a physicist in China, Pavičić — who is also affiliated with … Continue reading Poignancy in physics: Retraction for “fatal error” that couldn’t be patched
This one is an oldie but a goodie. We’ve published a few accounts of what it feels like to have your work plagiarized. But often absent from accounts like that are the views of the plagiarists. So here’s one. In 2009, the Cuban Journal of Endocrinology retracted a 2000 paper by a researcher who acknowledged … Continue reading I will not plagiarize, I will not plagiarize, No plagiaré…: When a journal requires a public apology
Two biotechnology researchers at the National Autonomous University of Mexico have been disciplined for manipulating images in 11 papers. La Jornada, one of Mexico City’s largest newspapers, reports that Alejandra Bravo and Mario Soberon, a wife and husband team who study the Bacillus thuringiensis (BT) bacteria toxins used in GMO crops to fight pests,were found guilty … Continue reading University disciplines researchers who study toxins used in GMO crops; at least seven corrections to follow
Today, on Thanksgiving in the U.S., Retraction Watch is taking a bit of a holiday as we dig into some turkey — not to be confused with retractions from Turkey. We’d like to give thanks for the thousands of Retraction Watch readers all over the world who’ve helped us shine a spotlight on the scientific … Continue reading Giving thanks for plagiarism detection software: Catching up on retractions for the sincerest form of flattery
In baseball, it’s three strikes and you’re out. In Nature, apparently, you can stay at the plate after three swings-and-misses. That’s what we concluded from a Corrigendum in last week’s issue, for “CD95 promotes tumour growth,” originally published in May 2010 and now corrected not once, not twice, but three times. Here was the first … Continue reading The Nature paper that required three corrections
Every now and then, we’re accused of “gotcha journalism” here at Retraction Watch. But here’s the story of a paper that we hope you’ll agree is “gotcha” science of the best kind, involving a different kind of retraction. The research is of, shall we say, a pressing problem known as Tie Retraction Syndrome, or TRS … Continue reading Tie Retraction Syndrome? Fat chance
Jesús A. Lemus, the Spanish veterinary researcher whose work has been the subject of a misconduct inquiry, has another retraction for his CV. It’s his third, according to our count. The newest retraction is from PLoS ONE: