Search Results for: dovepress

Journal flags paper on painkiller for misused trial registry record

A pain journal has expressed concern over a 2018 paper by a group of researchers in China after a reader alerted the publication to problems with the article, including previously-reported data and a bogus trial registry record.  The article, “Population pharmacokinetic modeling of flurbiprofen, the active metabolite of flurbiprofen axetil, in Chinese patients with postoperative … Continue reading Journal flags paper on painkiller for misused trial registry record

Conflicts of disinterest: Why does it take a publisher 18 months, and counting, to correct papers?

On February 23, 2018, Stephen Barrett — a physician in the United States perhaps best known for his work at Quackwatch — sent Dove Press this message: I believe you have published 20 articles in 6 of your journals in which the lead author did not make a full conflict-of-interest disclosure. Please email me directly … Continue reading Conflicts of disinterest: Why does it take a publisher 18 months, and counting, to correct papers?

Weekend reads: Why scientists respond badly to criticism; hidden retractions; journal cancels issue

The week at Retraction Watch featured a researcher whose ideas were stolen at least three times, a victory for Crossfit in its attempt to reveal peer reviewers, and the second delisting of a cancer journal by an index that praised it just months ago. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Caught Our Notice: Wait…we wrote WHAT paper?

Title: Assessment of coronary heart diseases in diabetics in al-Madinah al-Munawarah What Caught Our Notice: We’ve seen researchers dinged for adding authors to papers who didn’t participate in the research, but it’s rare to have a notice say co-author signatures were forged. In a recent retraction, the first two authors said the signatures on the the … Continue reading Caught Our Notice: Wait…we wrote WHAT paper?

Journal cleans the house by retracting 6 cancer papers for plagiarism

Following an investigation, a genetics journal has pulled six cancer papers published this year for plagiarizing from other sources. According to an excerpt from the retraction notice in Genetics and Molecular Research, the journal has “strong reason to believe that the peer review process was [a] failure,” and has alerted the authors’ institutions. The notice … Continue reading Journal cleans the house by retracting 6 cancer papers for plagiarism

Beg pardon? Researchers pull cancer paper because, well, um, you see …

We’ve been writing about retractions for six years, and things tend to fall into easily recognizable categories — plagiarism, fabricated data, rigged peer review, etc. So it’s always interesting to come across a notice sui generis, such as one that appeared in July in OncoTargets and Therapy, a Dove title, about a new way to detect … Continue reading Beg pardon? Researchers pull cancer paper because, well, um, you see …

Fake email address — for author, not reviewer — fells another paper

We’ve seen many cases of researchers creating fake email addresses to impersonate reviewers that usher their paper to publication. But in the latest fake email incident, a journal is retracting a paper on liver cancer after the first author created a phony address for the last and corresponding author. Both are researchers at Zhengzhou University in China. This … Continue reading Fake email address — for author, not reviewer — fells another paper

Plagiarism was “not an intentional act,” says first author of retracted TB paper

A 2013 review article about tuberculosis is being retracted for “unacknowledged re-use of significant portions of text” from another article, which the first author said wasn’t intentional. Sayantan Ray, based at Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata in India, told us that “most of the unchanged text” is present in sections written by junior co-authors. Since there doesn’t … Continue reading Plagiarism was “not an intentional act,” says first author of retracted TB paper

Authors retract green coffee bean diet paper touted by Dr. Oz

Two authors of a 2012 paper sponsored by a company that made grand claims about green coffee bean extract’s abilities to help people lose weight have retracted it. The study was cited by The Dr. Oz Show, and last month it cost the company a $3.5 million settlement with the Feds. Here’s the notice for … Continue reading Authors retract green coffee bean diet paper touted by Dr. Oz

“Authors, please call us. Pretty please? OK, we’re going to retract your paper!”

The title of this post isn’t exactly how the one-sided conversation between the editors of Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment and a group of researchers went. But it seems likely it was pretty close. Here’s an expression of concern for “A cross-sectional study on perception of stigma by Chinese schizophrenia patients:”