The Journal of Food Science has retracted a 2012 paper by Chinese scientists, one of whom copped to having made up data in the paper — which also plagiarized from a 2009 article by other researchers — and forging his co-authors’ names on the manuscript. The article, “A Multiplex PCR Assay for the Rapid and … Continue reading 2 for 2: Fraud, plagiarism force retraction of Staph aureus paper
One of the issues that comes up frequently when we’re moderating comments here on Retraction Watch is the distinction between “I think these images look strange” and “this researcher committed fraud.” That’s a pretty important distinction, because potentially actionable cases of libel live somewhere in between, probably closer to the latter — as Paul Brookes … Continue reading Where’s the line between scientific post-publication peer review critiques and libel?
Here at Retraction Watch, we judge retraction notices every day. We even have a category called “unhelpful retraction notices.” But we haven’t systematically analyzed those notices, so lucky for us, a group of academics at Vanderbilt decided to. In a new paper published in a special issue of Publications — an issue whose editor, Grant … Continue reading A rating system for retractions? How various journals stack up
Last week, we reported on the retraction of a paper by Benjamin Jacob Hayempour, a researcher who had threatened to sue us last month for even reporting on another of his retractions. The journal, Cureus, told us at the time that the retraction — in which the article disappeared, without a notice — didn’t have … Continue reading Journal reveals real reason for retraction of paper by author who threatened to sue Retraction Watch
The Journal of Virology has retracted a 2010 article on avian viruses marred by signs of bogus data. The paper, “Avian Reovirus Nonstructural Protein p17-Induced G2/M Cell Cycle Arrest and Host Cellular Protein Translation Shutoff Involve Activation of p53-Dependent Pathways,” came from a group at National Pingtung University of Science and Technology, in Pingtung, China. … Continue reading Data manipulation knocks bird virus paper off perch
Just 48 hours after publishing an article by Graham Cole and Darrel Francis last week alleging that Don Poldermans‘ scientific misconduct led to the deaths of some 800,000 Europeans over the past five years by tainting clinical guidelines, the European Heart Journal unceremoniously pulled the paper from its website Friday. Larry Husten at CardioBrief has … Continue reading Quickest withdrawal ever? Journal yanks paper alleging 800K deaths from Poldermans affair
With all the fuss about Yoshitaka Fujii, the current record holder for most retractions, you can be forgiven for forgetting that Joachim Boldt once owned that title, at least for about a year. Well, Boldt has another retraction, although he’d need to double his tally (which is in the range of 90) to match Fujii’s … Continue reading Another retraction for former record holder Joachim Boldt
The debate over the retraction of a highly controversial paper on the effects of GMOs on rats continues unabated. This week, Adriane Fugh-Berman and Thomas Sherman wrote on the Hastings Center website that
Japanese health officials are reportedly investigating whether researchers fabricated data in a 2.8 billion yen ($21.12 million) Alzheimer’s drug trial. According to Japan Today: Health officials said they were questioning researchers after being told false data was used in clinical testing for the 2.8 billion yen government-backed Alzheimer’s study, aimed at improving diagnosis of the … Continue reading Japan officials allege data cooking in Alzheimer’s drug study
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