Nature is retracting a 2018 paper which found that the oceans are warming much faster than predicted by previous models of climate change.
The article, “Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition,” appeared at last October but quickly drew the attention of an influential critic who said the analysis was flawed.
The authors agreed, and within three weeks the paper received the following update:
Continue reading Nature paper on ocean warming retracted
Nature is rescinding an award to a Spanish researcher whose group has at least nine retractions for problems with their published images.
The journal in 2017 gave Carlos López-Otín, of the University of Oviedo, its mid-career achievement mentoring prize for Spanish scientists — along with a physicist from Barcelona — citing:
the ability of these scientists to instil confidence in self-doubting trainees, and of their motivational skills.
But two years – and a slew of retractions — later, it seems Nature’s own doubts about López-Otín’s skills as a mentor were too great to ignore.
Continue reading Nature walks back mentorship prize for Spanish scientist with nine retractions
Carlo Croce, the embattled and litigious cancer researcher at The Ohio State University, may be on the market for a new attorney.
Croce, who unsuccessfully sued the New York Times for libel after the newspaper reported on misconduct allegations against him, has been waging a second legal front against his institution. The grounds: Croce wants Ohio State to restore him to his position as chair of the Department of Cancer Biology and Genetics — a demand OSU has so far rejected.
Court documents suggest that the case has proceeded to depositions. But we’ve learned that Croce’s attorneys in the academic matter have dropped him as a client. In a motion approved earlier this month, the lawyers, from the Columbus firm James E. Arnold & Associates, petitioned to be removed from the case.
Continue reading Wanted: Lawyer to take case of Ohio cancer researcher with retraction-rich CV
If you’re a fan of the post hoc fallacy, this post is for you. If not, we hope you’ll bear with us anyway.
In June, we reported on an expression of concern in the Journal of Cell Science for a 2006 paper “several bands…in Fig. 5 look very similar.” At the time, we noted that while the expression of concern claimed that the Istituto Superiore di Sanità, the authors’ institution, “does not have a suitable body to investigate this matter,” it in fact does.
After hearing that from us, Sharon Ahmad, the journal’s managing editor, approached Carlos Petrini, the director of bioethics at the ISS, who proceeded to investigate the work. Petrini has now sent us the summary of that investigation, which we’ve made available here.
Continue reading “Based on the literature, we have no reason not to believe to the authors.”
Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, we could really use your help. Would you consider a tax-deductible donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance.
The week at Retraction Watch featured a paper that used a mouse that doesn’t exist; the departure of a Columbia professor after plagiarism findings; and the correction of a paper whose authors claimed that cell phone use was causing people to grow “horns.” Here’s what happening elsewhere:
Continue reading Weekend reads: Retract papers, win major awards; “citation doping;” authorship abuse
A scientist for the U.S. government has lost a 2017 paper on spawning in catfish for problems with the data.
The paper, “Effective dose of salmon GnRHa for induction of ovulation in channel catfish,” was written by Nagaraj G. Chatakondi and appeared in the North American Journal of Aquaculture. Chatakondi is a geneticist with the Stoneville, Miss., office of the Agricultural Research Service, a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
According to the notice:
Continue reading Fishy data doom paper by USDA aquaculture researcher
A psychology researcher at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management has left a tenure-track position there less than a year after she and a co-author retracted a paper whose methods had been questioned online, Retraction Watch has learned.
Ping Dong and Chen-bo Zhong, a professor at the University of Toronto, where Dong received her PhD, retracted a paper from Psychological Science in November 2018, six months after publishing it. As we reported at the time, the paper
Continue reading Northwestern psychology researcher out following retraction
A highly controversial 2018 paper suggesting that too much bent-neck staring at your cell phone could sprout, in the words of one of the authors, a “horn” on the back of your head is — perhaps unsurprisingly — getting corrected.
The article, “Prominent exostosis projecting from the occipital squama more substantial and prevalent in young adult than older age groups,” which appeared in Nature Publishing Group’s Scientific Reports in February 2018, received scads of media coverage earlier this year. The stories initially were alarmist but grew increasingly skeptical as journalists and experts began poking holes in the authors’ claims.
The corrected paper doesn’t completely walk back the association, but it definitely mutes the assertions significantly. For example, the original discussion section included this passage:
Continue reading ‘Text neck’ — aka ‘horns’ — paper earns corrections
A tenured professor of history at Columbia University will be stepping down at the end of next year after an investigating committee at the school found “incontrovertible evidence of research misconduct” in his controversial 2013 book.
Charles King Armstrong, the Korea Foundation Professor of Korean Studies in the Social Sciences, was found to have “cited nonexistent or irrelevant sources in at least 61 instances” in “Tyranny of the Weak: North Korea and the World, 1950-1992,” according to the Columbia Spectator, which first reported on the resignation last week.
In a September 10 letter, Maya Tolstoy, dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, announced the news to the institution:
Continue reading Columbia historian stepping down after plagiarism finding
A group of ophthalmology researchers in China got caught trying to pull the wool over the eyes of readers by falsely claiming to have used a therapy that doesn’t exist.
As its title would indicate, the article, “Anti-angiogenic effect of Interleukin-26 in oxygen-induced retinopathy mice via inhibiting NFATc1-VEGF pathway,” by a team from Jinhua Municipal Central Hospital in Zhejiang, purported to show that IL-26 could prevent the growth of new blood vessels in mice with damaged retinas.
Per the abstract of the paper, which appeared in Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications (BBRC):
Continue reading ‘The problem is that there is no IL-26 gene in the mouse’ — an exasperated letter leads to a retraction
