The retraction counts keep mounting for two Retraction Watch frequent flyers. First, Diederik Stapel’s 26th retraction, according to our count. Psychologist Stapel admitted to making up data in dozens of studies, and is also facing a criminal inquiry for misuse of funds. Here’s the notice:
October, apparently, is “studies of retractions month.” First there was a groundbreaking study in PNAS, then an NBER working paper, and yesterday PLoS Medicine alerted us to a paper their sister journal, PLoS ONE, published last week, “A Comprehensive Survey of Retracted Articles from the Scholarly Literature.” The study, by Michael L. Grieneisen and Minghua Zhang, … Continue reading Most retraction notices don’t involve research misconduct or flawed data: new study
A new study from a group of Boston-area economists sheds some light on whether retractions have downstream effects on related fields, particularly when it comes to funding. From the abstract of the working paper, called simply “Retractions,” by Pierre Azoulay, Jeffrey L. Furman, Joshua L. Krieger, and Fiona E. Murray: We find that scientifi c misconduct … Continue reading Collateral damage: What effect do retractions have on scientific funding?
A prominent researcher at the University of Florida is under federal investigation for research misconduct and has lost at least one paper as a result of the fraud. The researcher, Nasser Chegini, was a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the U of Florida until about six months ago, when he retired, according to the … Continue reading ORI investigating University of Florida ob-gyn researcher accused of misconduct
A difficult authorship dispute, involving two journals and at least two continents, has led to an Expression of Concern in the Brazilian Journal of Rheumatology. Here’s the Expression of Concern:
We’ve had a few unofficial record-holders here at Retraction Watch. The current leader in the retraction column, for example, is Yoshitaka Fujii, who will likely retract 172 papers. He took that record from Joachim Boldt, with just shy of 90. Today, we’ll take a stab at another record, longest time between publication and retraction. The … Continue reading And the winner for longest time on record between publication and retraction is…
We’ve written about mega-corrections that allow scientists to retrace virtually all of their steps yet preserve their publications as supposedly legitimate. And we’ve seen plenty of corrections that allow authors to assert that their conclusions are correct when evidently important pieces of data are themselves unreliable. Now comes a correction that seems to us to … Continue reading Correction for MD Anderson’s Bharat Aggarwal arches eyebrows for the right reasons
Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands has released the final report on Don Poldermans, finding that the institution’s once-star cardiology researcher committed misconduct. As Larry Husten of CardioBrief reports, Erasmus MC’s investigation included that Poldermans — perhaps best known for his work on beta-blockers — has admitted to acts of misconduct but not to fraud. … Continue reading Final report on cardiology researcher Poldermans confirms claims of misconduct
A group of researchers in China have retracted a 2011 article in Acta Pharmacologica Sinica, the official journal of the Chinese Pharmacological Society, acknowledging that they lifted text and results from a previously published paper from other researchers. The paper was titled “Lipid metabolism disturbances and AMPK activation in prolonged propofol-sedated rabbits under mechanical ventilation.” … Continue reading Expressions of regret: group retracts sedation paper for stolen words, data
A paper by Dirk Smeesters — the former Erasmus University social psychology professor investigated for serious irregularities in his work — has been retracted. The study, “Visual perspective influences the use of metacognitive information in temporal comparisons,” appeared in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology earlier this year. Here’s the notice, which doesn’t quite … Continue reading Retraction appears for paper by social psychologist Dirk Smeesters