A group of authors in Korea has lost their 2013 paper on treating vision loss after one of the two cases they’d reported turned out to have been fatally flawed. The paper, “Isolated central retinal artery occlusion as an initial presentation of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria and successful long-term prevention of systemic thrombosis with eculizumab,” had … Continue reading “Critical data” errors force retraction of vision paper
Back in August we — and others — wrote about a paper in Organometallics for which one member of the study team appeared to have instructed a co-author to pad the article with artificial results. From the supplemental information (SI) of that paper: Emma, please insert NMR data here! where are they? and for this … Continue reading Authors of “just make up an…analysis” Organometallics paper issue mega-correction
We have an update on the story of 120 bogus papers being removed by IEEE and Springer. The latter posted a statement earlier today, which we include in its entirety below:
A group of bird researchers in Korea has lost their 2006 paper on DNA barcoding of that country’s avian species because they feathered the article with material from others. The paper, “DNA barcoding Korean birds,” appeared in Molecules and Cells, published by Springer for the Korean Society for Molecular and Cellular Biology and has been … Continue reading Clone call for bird gene bar-coding paper
Time for another installment of Ask Retraction Watch: Let’s say I’m collecting relevant papers to write a review, or preparing a project, and I have rather limited time. I find a few interesting papers, bump into some paywalls, ask the authors for the .pdf without any response, and finally I decide to pay, say, $20 … Continue reading Should readers get a refund when they pay to access seriously flawed papers?
A leading chemist at the University of Washington, Larry Dalton, has retracted a 2004 study in Inorganica Chimica Acta, marking his second retraction in the journal in 47 years. Here’s the new notice:
Two major publishers will remove more than 120 papers created with random paper generator SCIgen, according to Nature. Richard van Noorden, who has the scoop, reports:
An article in New Space, a journal about space travel, has been retracted because the results it presented weren’t ready for liftoff. The retraction notice appears as a letter from editor G. Scott Hubbard:
A group of researchers from MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston has lost a 2013 paper in BJU International for running afoul of their institution’s ethics review board, and of military reviewers, as well. The paper, “Many young men with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screen-detected prostate cancers may be candidates for active surveillance,” looked at prostate … Continue reading IRB mishap costs MD Anderson team a paper on prostate cancer
If you know Prairie Home Companion, you that that in fictional Lake Wobegon, “all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average.” That’s a bit like what Harvard’s Nir Eyal found when he was asked to review a paper for Dove Medical Press. Here’s what he … Continue reading No more scientific Lake Wobegon: After criticism, publisher adds a “reject” option for peer reviewers