Another busy week at Retraction Watch, which kicked off with our announcement that we’re hiring a paid intern. Here’s what was happening elsewhere around the web:
The publisher Taylor & Francis has decided to pulp all existing copies of a 2012 book on science communication, and suspend electronic copies indefinitely, after it became clear that the text was plagiarized from the work of another author. The book, Clear and Concise Communications for Scientists and Engineers, was written by energy and environmental … Continue reading Publisher to pulp existing copies of science communication book because of plagiarism
In 2011, a group of researchers at Columbia University reported in Cell that they had been able to convert skin cells from patients with Alzheimer’s disease into functioning neurons — a finding that raised the exciting prospect of “made to order” brain cells for patients with the degenerative disease. As one researcher not involved with … Continue reading Fraud fells Alzheimer’s “made to order” neurons paper in Cell
In the wake of Harvard’s gritty performance in the NCAA men’s basketball tournament — they were eliminated Saturday — a pair of faculty members at the Ivy League institution are calling foul on two controversial journal articles that have already been corrected. Walter Willett, an oft-quoted Harvard nutrition expert, is calling for the retraction of … Continue reading March Madness? Harvard profs take shots at controversial studies, request retractions
Another busy week here at Retraction Watch, with many in the scientific world glued to their browsers for more information on the latest stem cell controversy. Hear Ivan on the BBC discussing what that story means for post-publication peer review. Elsewhere around the web:
An article in New Space, a journal about space travel, has been retracted because the results it presented weren’t ready for liftoff.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:
Yet another busy week at Retraction Watch, with one of us taking part in a symposium on the future of science journalism for a few days. (See if you can find Ivan in this picture.) Here’s what was happening elsewhere on the web in science publishing and related issues:
Retraction Watch has learned that The Leadership Quarterly, a management journal published by Elsevier, plans to retract five papers by a Florida researcher poised to “rock” the field — but probably not quite in the way a press release intended — whose findings in the articles were questioned by readers. The scholar, Fred O. Walumbwa, … Continue reading Leadership journal to retract five papers from FIU scholar
Neuroskeptic featured an interesting situation over the weekend, involving a case report published in an anesthesiology journal. The case report in Anaesthesia and Intensive Care — about a six-year-old boy with a rare neurological condition who died following administration of anesthesia — caused the boy’s parents great distress when it appeared in November. Here’s the … Continue reading Journal and authors apologize “unreservedly” for distress caused to deceased child’s family by case report
Living Cell Technologies (LCT), a biotech company headquartered in Australia, has retracted a 2011 paper purporting to show that their product reversed Parkinson’s symptoms in rats after “being unable to reconfirm their reported results and a possible deviation from the protocol.” LCT is developing NTCELL, which, according to their site: