Search Results for: nature

Authors retract meningitis paper over permission — but data are in a public database

A study characterizing subtypes of the bacteria that cause bacterial meningitis is being retracted after the authors didn’t have permission to publish the data, even though the data itself remain available in a public database. The paper, in PLOS ONE, relied on a laboratory collection of patient samples. In October, the authors retracted it because … Continue reading Authors retract meningitis paper over permission — but data are in a public database

Weekend reads: 179 researchers indicted; how to reject a rejection; breaking the law on clinical trial data

The week at Retraction Watch featured more installments in the seemingly never-ending story of fake peer reviews. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

In more faked peer review news…10 papers pulled by Hindawi

Guess what? We’ve got more cases of fraudulent peer review to report — our second post of the day on the subject, in fact. In the latest news, Hindawi Publishing Corporation has retracted 10 papers for “fraudulent review reports,” after an investigation of more than 30 papers that had been flagged this summer. The investigation found … Continue reading In more faked peer review news…10 papers pulled by Hindawi

Cancer researcher cleared of misconduct, inquiry finds “genuine error or honest oversight”

An investigation at the University of New South Wales in Australia has determined that a long-accused cancer researcher did not commit misconduct. The investigation did find instances when Levon Khachigian breached the code of conduct, but

Cancer research pioneer Robert Weinberg corrected Oncogene paper

Robert Weinberg, a prominent cancer researcher at the Whitehead Institute, issued a correction to a paper in Oncogene in May, fixing two errors missed during proofing. We found this one a little late, obviously. It also appears to be a relatively minor correction, not one that appears worthy of retraction. We’ve gotten feedback from readers … Continue reading Cancer research pioneer Robert Weinberg corrected Oncogene paper

Weekend reads: What do PhDs earn?; university refuses to release data; collaboration’s dark side

This week at Retraction Watch featured a look at the huge problem of misidentified cell lines, a check-in with a company that retracted a paper as it was about to go public, and Diederik Stapel’s 58th retraction. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Cancer researcher contributed “false data” to 11 studies

A former cancer researcher has falsified data in 11 studies, according to the results of a investigation scheduled to be published in the Federal Register tomorrow. The Office of Research Integrity’s findings are based on an inquiry at Virginia Commonwealth University, where Girija Dasmahapatra worked until July of this year, investigating possible therapies for cancer. The … Continue reading Cancer researcher contributed “false data” to 11 studies

We’re wasting a lot of research funding using the wrong cell lines. Here’s one thing we can do.

If you could help reduce the waste of tens of billions of dollars per year in research spending, you’d do it, right? This is the second in a series of two guest posts about the havoc misidentified cell lines can wreak on research, from Leonard P. Freedman, president of the Global Biological Standards Institute. Freedman who … Continue reading We’re wasting a lot of research funding using the wrong cell lines. Here’s one thing we can do.

Hundreds of researchers are using the wrong cells. That’s a major problem.

What if we told you that approximately 1 in 6 researchers working with human cells are using the wrong cell line? In other words, they believe they are studying the effects of a drug on breast cancer cells, for instance, but what they really have are cells from the bladder. That is the unfortunate reality … Continue reading Hundreds of researchers are using the wrong cells. That’s a major problem.

Weekend reads: Retraction reluctance; worthless papers (and stats); too many PhDs

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: