It seemed like an egregious violation of academic standards. A researcher forwarded us a data access agreement from the University of Oxford, in which Schedule 4 read as follows:
The week at Retraction Watch featured yet another case of a researcher peer reviewing his own paper, and an odd defense of plagiarism. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Despite the claims of a widely circulated news report today, The Lancet has no plans to retract a controversial open letter to the people of Gaza that has drawn criticism since being published in August. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) reported this morning:
A pair of researchers who have been calling for the retraction of two papers by cardiology researcher Don Poldermans say the New England Journal of Medicine is “not justified” “disappointing” in its refusal to pull the articles. A little background: Poldermans resigned from Erasmus University in 2011 after having been accused of misconduct. Last week, … Continue reading Critics of Poldermans’ work baffled by NEJM stance on DECREASE papers
This one is a little odd. A cardiology paper from China has been retracted because “permission to report these discussions was not sought nor obtained,” though it’s unclear what “the discussions” refers to. The person to whom the discussions are attributed to in the retraction, Ji Bingyang, is not an author on the paper, and … Continue reading Notice fails to get to the heart of cardiology retraction
A group of liver researchers from the University of Pittsburgh has earned a pair of corrections in Hepatology for image problems. The team was led by George K. Michalopoulos, chair of the department of pathology at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. One article, “Excessive hepatomegaly of mice with hepatocyte-targeted elimination of integrin linked kinase … Continue reading Hepatology issues corrections in two papers from Pitt liver group
We brought you this story last week, about a paper on drug resistant staph being retracted for a lab error. Now, we’ve got an update from Rachel Safer, senior editor for medical journals at Oxford University Press, where the paper was published. Apparently, the researchers “inadvertently relied upon the use of a test system that was … Continue reading Publisher updates with more info on staph retraction
Retraction Watch readers are of course familiar with the STAP stem cell saga, which was punctuated by tragedy last month when one of the authors of the two now-retracted papers in Nature committed suicide. In June, Science‘s news section reported: Sources in the scientific community confirm that early versions of the STAP work were rejected … Continue reading “Truly extraordinary,” “simply not credible,” “suspiciously sharp:” A STAP stem cell peer review report revealed
Cory Toth is up to nine retractions. The University of Calgary researcher who told us earlier this year that he “will not be publishing in the world of science in the future” has retracted two papers from Neuroscience. Here’s the notice for “Local erythropoietin signaling enhances regeneration in peripheral axons:”
Another busy week at Retraction Watch. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: