Search Results for: duplication retractions

Shigeaki Kato up to 33 retractions, with five papers cited a total of 450 times

Former University of Tokyo researcher Shigeaki Kato continues to put big numbers on the board. Last month, we reported on his 26th, 27th, and 28th retractions, all in Nature Cell Biology and cited close to 700 times. Yesterday, EMBO Journal and EMBO Reports published a total of five more retractions for the endocrinology researcher, who … Continue reading Shigeaki Kato up to 33 retractions, with five papers cited a total of 450 times

Crystal confusion leads to retractions for optics researchers

A mistaken molecular structure has led to a retraction and a withdrawal for group in India studying optical crystals. Here’s the notice for “Crystal growth and spectroscopic characterization of Aloevera amino acid added lithium sulfate monohydrate: A non-linear optical crystal” in Spectrochimica Acta Part A:

Retractions arrive in plagiarism scandal involving economist Nijkamp

Retractions have arrived in the case of Peter Nijkamp, a leading Dutch economist accused of duplication and plagiarism. The Review of Economic Analysis has removed two of Nijkamp’s articles for self-plagiarism. According to the NRC Handelsblad website (courtesy of Google translate): The affair university economics professor Peter Nijkamp and his PhD student Karima Kourtit has … Continue reading Retractions arrive in plagiarism scandal involving economist Nijkamp

UT-Southwestern cancer researchers up to 8 retractions

A group at the University of Texas Southwestern led by Adi F. Gazdar that found evidence of inappropriate image manipulation in a number of their papers has retracted its seventh and eighth studies. Here’s the notice for 2005’s “Aberrant methylation profile of human malignant mesotheliomas and its relationship to SV40 infection,” in Oncogene:

Retractions 3 and 4 appear for researcher facing criminal probe; OSU co-author won’t face inquiry

Alfredo Fusco, a cancer researcher in Italy who is facing a criminal investigation for fraud, has had two more papers retracted.

“Stupid, it should not be done that way”: Researcher explains how duplications led to a retraction

More than two years ago, we wrote about a retraction for duplication in Biophysical Journal prompted by an email from pseudonymous whistleblower Clare Francis. That post generated a robust discussion, including one comment from someone calling himself or herself “Double Dutch.” This past weekend, the last author of that paper, Rienk van Grondelle, left a … Continue reading “Stupid, it should not be done that way”: Researcher explains how duplications led to a retraction

Dutch economist Nijkamp embroiled in plagiarism and duplication scandal

The Dutch papers are reporting that Peter Nijkamp, one of the leading economists in The Netherlands, has been embroiled in what looks like a self-plagiarism scandal following the cancellation of a thesis defense by one of his graduate students because of plagiarism. We say “what looks like” because it’s tough to figure out what’s alleged … Continue reading Dutch economist Nijkamp embroiled in plagiarism and duplication scandal

Five plagiarism retractions appear for Taiwan engineer

Two journals have retracted five papers by a researcher in Taiwan who evidently took the notion of teamwork a little too liberally. The first notice is one we missed when it came out in 2012 in the British Journal of Educational Technology. The article, “Learning in troubleshooting of automotive braking system: a project-based teamwork approach,” … Continue reading Five plagiarism retractions appear for Taiwan engineer

Chemist loses two papers, one each for plagiarism and duplication

A researcher at Shanxi Normal University in China has notched two retractions, once for plagiarism and one for duplication. Here’s the most recent notice, which appeared in Chemical Physics Letters on September 25:

Duplication earns engineering paper a corrigendum rather than a retraction

Two authors in Turkey have had their paper subjected to a correction after it became clear that material was lifted heavily from two previous papers by one of the researchers. The corrigendum reads: