Authors have retracted a paper from the Journal of Neurosurgery that contained many errors, including mislabeled figures, anatomical errors, and mismatched citations. They said that the paper’s preparation was rushed and not all authors had a chance to verify that it was accurate. Two of the authors of the paper had previously contacted the journal … Continue reading Neuroanatomy paper riddled with errors pulled by authors
Science has retracted an August paper on an interesting electric current researchers observed in a kind of material called a topological insulator. Well, a current the researchers — based at Stanford and MIT — thought they had observed. A magnetic field with particular attributes reported in the paper seemed to provide evidence of the current. But the researchers soon discovered that … Continue reading Science retracts physics paper after magnetic field wasn’t what it seemed
Although many scientists fear putting their data to the test of replication efforts, due to the embarrassment they’d feel if their findings couldn’t be repeated, a new study suggests those fears are unfounded. The paper, published last week in PLOS ONE, found that scientists overestimate how much having non-replicable data will hurt their careers, and … Continue reading Having non-replicable data may not hurt your rep, says study
The week at Retraction Watch featured a new grant to our parent non-profit organization, a retraction from the NEJM, and our first-ever retraction. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
When two chemists based in China couldn’t reproduce experiments in their paper on opal films, they retracted it. As the retraction note explains: In this article we report a method to fabricate 2D TiO2–WO3 composite inverse opal films via a mechanical co-assembly route with a template of polystyrene spheres. Upon repeating the experiments described, we found that this … Continue reading Chemists pull non-reproducible paper on method to make opal films
A paper published in August that caught the media’s eye for concluding that feeling sad influences how you see colors has been retracted, after the authors identified problems that undermined their findings. The authors explain the problems in a detailed retraction note released today by Psychological Science. They note that they found sadness influenced how people see blues and yellows … Continue reading Got the blues? You can still see blue: Popular paper on sadness, color perception retracted
Authors have retracted a highly cited Nature letter that purported to discover a much sought-after, stable light source from quantum dots, after they realized the light was actually coming from another source: the glass the dots were affixed to. When the paper “Non-blinking semiconductor nanocrystals” was published in 2009, it received some media coverage, such … Continue reading Authors retract highly cited Nature quantum dot letter after discovering error
The week at Retraction Watch featured the unmasking of the people behind PubPeer, and an editor doing the right thing following a high-profile retraction. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
The week at Retraction Watch featured revelations of yet more fake peer reviews, bringing the retraction total to 250. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
2013 was a rough year for biologist Pamela Ronald. After discovering the protein that appears to trigger rice’s immune system to fend off a common bacterial disease – suggesting a new way to engineer disease-resistant crops – she and her team had to retract two papers in 2013 after they were unable to replicate their … Continue reading What do you do after painful retractions? Q&A with Pamela Ronald and Benjamin Schwessinger