Search Results for: medical

Authors retract surgery study that claimed to be randomized but wasn’t

The authors of a study about spinal fusion surgery have retracted it after realizing the cohort study was described as a prospective, randomized trial.  The last author told us he believed the incorrect wording was added to the paper — and the title — by accident. Even though he said the journal Spine suggested correcting it, the authors chose … Continue reading Authors retract surgery study that claimed to be randomized but wasn’t

Misidentified cell line fells cancer paper

Researchers have retracted a paper about a new molecular target for cancer after realizing they had mistaken the identity of their cell line. It’s all too easy to mix up cell lines, so we see plenty of retractions for that reason — and, according to an expert in the area, many more cases lurk uncorrected in … Continue reading Misidentified cell line fells cancer paper

Pro-lifers call for JAMA to retract 2005 paper about fetal pain

Pro-life activists have asked JAMA to retract a 2005 paper that suggested fetuses can’t feel pain before the third trimester. Critics are arguing that newer findings have shown pain sensation appears earlier in gestation, yet the 2005 data continue to be cited in the discussion around abortion. What’s more, they note, some of the authors … Continue reading Pro-lifers call for JAMA to retract 2005 paper about fetal pain

Authors pull 4 papers from surgery journal for plagiarism

The authors of four papers have pulled them for “significant overlap” with other publications, as well as borrowing “large portions of text” — in other words, plagiarism. Two of the newly retracted papers published in BMC Surgery also listed co-authors who were “not involved in the study;” a similar note appears for an additional 2015 retraction that we’ve found for one … Continue reading Authors pull 4 papers from surgery journal for plagiarism

Weekend reads: How to prove (and find) false claims; confessions of a wasteful scientist

This week at Retraction Watch featured what may be a record for plagiarism, a paper retracted because the device researchers claimed to use hadn’t arrive in the institution yet, and a technical glitch, which meant you may have missed some of our posts. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

JAMA journals pull 3 papers by same authors for misconduct

JAMA and another journal in its network have retracted three 2005 papers about preventing hip fractures, after an admission of scientific misconduct.  All papers are being retracted over concerns about data integrity, and “inappropriate assignment of authorship.” Four of the authors — all based in Japan — have co-authored all of the three newly retracted … Continue reading JAMA journals pull 3 papers by same authors for misconduct

JAMA takes all calls for retraction seriously — even from PETA

A leading medical journal is taking a second look at a recent high-profile paper about elephants’ lower risk of cancer, after receiving a call for retraction from a somewhat unusual corner: the animal rights group PETA. This isn’t the first time the activist group has called for a retraction — last year, it nudged a … Continue reading JAMA takes all calls for retraction seriously — even from PETA

Some posts you may have missed: Impressive amounts of plagiarism; PhD revocation; a poll, and more

Dear Retraction Watch readers: Those of you signed up for our emails for every post may have wondered why we haven’t sent you any emails since Saturday. Well, it wasn’t because we didn’t want to. We had a technical glitch, which we’ve now fixed. Apologies for that, and here are links to the posts that … Continue reading Some posts you may have missed: Impressive amounts of plagiarism; PhD revocation; a poll, and more

Author “committed serious mistakes,” finds Taipei investigation

An investigation at Taipei Medical University found that an author made “serious mistakes” when preparing a manuscript. The journal prompted the university to investigate the paper, which looks at the role of a protein in repairing arteries after an injury. The retraction notice explains:

What does “reproducibility” mean? New paper seeks to standardize the lexicon

What is the difference between “reproducible” and “replicable”? And how does each relate to results that are “generalizable” and “robust”? Researchers are using these terms interchangeably, creating confusion over what exactly is needed to confirm a scientific result, argues a new paper published today in Science Translational Medicine. Here’s how the US National Science Foundation (NSF) … Continue reading What does “reproducibility” mean? New paper seeks to standardize the lexicon