Milena Penkowa, the former University of Copenhagen scientist found by her university to have embezzled grant funds and to have possibly committed misconduct in 15 papers, has another retraction. An international panel released its findings in July, as Nature reported then:
A group of cancer researchers formerly centered at Johns Hopkins have retracted two more studies. The previous two retracted papers — one of which was the focus of a lawsuit — were about prostate cancer, while the new retractions are of papers about colon cancer. Here’s the notice for one paper:
Paul Muchowski, a neuroscience researcher at the Gladstone Institute of Neurological Disease in San Francisco, faked data in multiple grant applications, according to findings released today by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI). In a funded NIH grant, R01 NS054753-06A1, and two submitted grant applications, R01 NS054753-06 and R01 NS047237-06, ORI says that Muchowski “knowingly … Continue reading Neuroscientist made up data in NIH grant applications, says ORI
The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has sanctioned a former Texas Tech postdoc for using data that had actually been generated before he joined the lab in a paper as if it were new. Shuang-Qing Zhang, according to today’s announcement by the ORI, “engaged in research misconduct by the falsification and fabrication of plagiarized data” … Continue reading ORI sanctions former Texas Tech postdoc for falsification, fabrication, plagiarism
Alirio Melendez, a former National University of Singapore immunologist whose story we’ve been following here since a retraction in September of last year, committed misconduct on an “unprecedented” scale, according to the university, involving more than 20 papers. Nature’s Richard van Noorden has the scoop: After a 19-month investigation, the National University of Singapore (NUS) … Continue reading NUS: Melendez committed “serious scientific misconduct,” but don’t expect to get any details
The Journal of the American College of Cardiology, or JACC, has issued expressions of concern for three papers by Don Poldermans, the Dutch cardiologist who was fired earlier this year amid allegations of misconduct. Cardiobrief’s Larry Husten had the story first. The, um, heart of the matter is that neither the investigators at Erasmus Medical … Continue reading Concern — in triplicate — arrives for Poldermans papers
As Retraction Watch readers know, we cover Elsevier’s journals frequently, including a story just last week about their peer review system being hacked. And they’ve written about us, too. So we’re pleased to present a guest post by Elsevier’s Linda Lavelle, General Counsel-North America, about the publisher’s take on plagiarism and other unethical behavior — … Continue reading How is Elsevier promoting ethical publishing? A guest post
Sometimes, retraction notices offer tantalizing clues, but no real information. Take the case of a paper called “Florid osseous dysplasia,” which was published last year in Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology by a group at Mumbai’s Nair Hospital Dental College and retracted recently. Here’s the notice, which is suggestive but doesn’t say much:
Last month, we brought you news that Pfizer had retracted a paper in the Journal of Clinical Oncology purporting to show a benefit of their experimental drug for lung cancer figitumumab after discovering that its clinical lead on the project had done analyses improperly. There’s been another retraction, of a related paper, in the British … Continue reading Another retraction for Pfizer’s experimental cancer treatment figitumumab
As we — and others — have written, retracted articles don’t necessarily creep off to some little island somewhere never to be heard from again. After all, the electronic versions of about a third of retracted papers aren’t marked as retracted. Sometimes, like Napoleon, those papers return from exile to wreak havoc: They get cited … Continue reading After retracted study’s cited, editors ask, “time to add scientific integrity to the downside of print on paper?”