Search Results for: medical

Much of preclinical research into one cancer drug is flawed, says report

A review of preclinical research of a now widely used cancer drug suggests the studies contain multiple methodology flaws and overestimate the benefits of the drug. Specifically, the researchers found that most studies didn’t randomize treatments, didn’t blind investigators to which animals were receiving the drug, and tested tumors in only one animal model, which limits the … Continue reading Much of preclinical research into one cancer drug is flawed, says report

Is less publishing linked to more plagiarism?

Countries that publish less science appear to “borrow” more language from others than other, more scientifically prolific countries, according to a new small study. Using a novel approach of comparing a country’s total citations against its total published papers (CPP), the authors categorized 80 retractions from journals in general and internal medicine. This is a … Continue reading Is less publishing linked to more plagiarism?

Boldt’s retraction count upped to 94, co-author takes legal action to prevent 95th

We’ve found two recent retractions and an expression of concern for Joachim Boldt, former prominent anesthesiologist and currently Retraction Watch leaderboard’s 2nd place titleholder. He now has 94 retractions. One of the retracted articles contains falsified data, along with a researcher who didn’t agree to be a co-author, according to an investigation by the Justus Liebig University Giessen, where Boldt … Continue reading Boldt’s retraction count upped to 94, co-author takes legal action to prevent 95th

Weekend reads: FDA nominee authorship questions; low economics replication rates

The week at Retraction Watch featured a mysterious retraction from PLOS ONE, and a thoughtful piece by a scientist we’ve covered frequently on where we went wrong in that coverage. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Where I think Retraction Watch went wrong: A guest post from Paolo Macchiarini

We are pleased to present a guest post by Paolo Macchiarini, a surgeon best known for pioneering the creation of tracheas from cadavers and patients’ own stem cells. Macchiarini has faced some harsh criticisms over the years, including accusations of downplaying the risks of the procedure and not obtaining proper consent. We have covered the investigation, including … Continue reading Where I think Retraction Watch went wrong: A guest post from Paolo Macchiarini

Journal bans authors of duplicated asthma paper

A common ailment known as duplication has taken down a paper about a common fungus and asthma. Aspergillus spores are often ubiquitous yet harmless, but can irritate people whose lungs aren’t in top working order. Duplication, on the other hand, is more universally deadly. The editors of The Pan African Medical Journal told us that, in addition to the retraction, there … Continue reading Journal bans authors of duplicated asthma paper

There’s “no evidence” research was conducted at all in retracted cancer paper

To one reader of a paper on a nerve cancer, the researchers, based at a hospital in China, seemed to have found a very large number of cases of a rare cancer to study. That observation triggered an investigation into the paper that led to its retraction — and the concern that the authors in the paper never did … Continue reading There’s “no evidence” research was conducted at all in retracted cancer paper

Publisher bans authors for apparent plagiarism

Three authors have been banned from journals published by IGM Publication, including the Journal of Medical Science and Clinical Research. The ban — a relatively infrequent occurrence in publishing — comes after the publisher removed a 2014 article that seems to have merely changed the title and authors of a 2013 article  from another journal. When … Continue reading Publisher bans authors for apparent plagiarism

“Rigging of the peer-review process” kills parasite paper

A paper on nematode parasites appears to have been infected with a nasty strain of a publishing problem known as fake peer review. By our count, the phenomenon has felled approximately 250 papers in total. The affected review, “The important role of matrix metalloproteinases in nematode parasites,” explores a type of enzyme secreted by the parasite. Published … Continue reading “Rigging of the peer-review process” kills parasite paper

Predatory journals published 400,000 papers in 2014: Report

The number of so-called “predatory” open-access journals that allegedly sidestep publishing standards in order to make money off of article processing charges has dramatically expanded in recent years, and three-quarters of authors are based in either Asia or Africa, according to a new analysis from BMC Medicine.* The number of articles published by predatory journals spiked … Continue reading Predatory journals published 400,000 papers in 2014: Report