Weekend reads: “Too much success” in psychology, why hoaxes aren’t the real problem in science
Another busy week at Retraction Watch. Here’s what was happening elsewhere around the web in science publishing and research integrity news:
Search Results for: "stem cell"
Fraud, retractions no barrier to US cloning patent for Woo-Suk Hwang
Woo-Suk Hwang is having quite a comeback. The cloning researcher’s fall from grace in 2005 and 2006 was covered worldwide, featuring two high-profile retractions from Science and convictions (now under appeal) on charges he embezzled government funds and broke South Korea’s bioethics law. But as Nature reported last month in a profile focusing on Hwang’s … Continue reading Fraud, retractions no barrier to US cloning patent for Woo-Suk Hwang
A first? Dental journal retracts three papers because authors didn’t pay publication charges
Dental Materials Journal has retracted three papers by different groups of authors for “violation of our publishing policies and procedures” — which turns out to be a polite way of saying “they wouldn’t pay our fees.” The articles are:
Aussie university asks for retraction, investigates former neurology researcher for fraud
The University of Queensland has decided to get out in front of a serious research misconduct scandal by issuing a press release about the item even before, well, we could get a hold of the story. The affair involves Bruce Murdoch (all of his links at UQ are defunct), an expert in movement disorders such … Continue reading Aussie university asks for retraction, investigates former neurology researcher for fraud
A sad postscript: Paper by deceased researcher retracted
It was the last study ever published from prominent scientist Gerd Maul’s lab. And now it’s been retracted. Maul was a highly cited cell biologist, with 30 papers cited at least 100 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge. He was also a well-known sculptor. When he died in 2010, he had a paper … Continue reading A sad postscript: Paper by deceased researcher retracted
Cell attributes image problems in cloning paper to “minor” errors; sees no impact on conclusions
Yesterday we reported that Cell was looking into problematic images in a recent paper on human embryonic stem cell cloning. We’ve now heard from the journal about the nature of the inquiry. Mary Beth O’Leary, a spokeswoman for Cell Press — an Elsevier title — tells us that: Based on our own initial in-house assessment … Continue reading Cell attributes image problems in cloning paper to “minor” errors; sees no impact on conclusions
Post 982 — in which we find plagiarized bone graft paper that grafted from other papers
The Surgeon has retracted a 2012 article by a group from the U.K. who took text from a previously published article. So, you say? Nu? Well, we found — through relatively little effort — that the plagiarizees were themselves, shall we say, liberal in their use of material from other sources. The retracted article was … Continue reading Post 982 — in which we find plagiarized bone graft paper that grafted from other papers
Pig cloning paper retracted for being a clone
Once again, the headline has written itself. The journal Animal has retracted a 2010 paper on cloning pig embryos after it became clear that there were “close similarities” between it and a 2009 paper by some of the same authors. Here’s the notice:
RNA paper retracted for “carelessness in including some of the figures”
Here at Retraction Watch, we’ve covered retractions for misconduct, journal errors, editorial system hacking and even no particular reason. And that’s just in the last week. However, we’ve identified a new reported reason: carelessness. A paper in Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry claimed to show how a tiny RNA causes fat cells to die. Instead, the … Continue reading RNA paper retracted for “carelessness in including some of the figures”
De-Toxicology: Authors pull more meeting abstracts, citing journal error
We recently wrote about a group of English scientists who asked Toxicology to de-publish their abstract from a conference proceedings issue. Turns out they were far from alone. The journal’s December issue has at least five more such removal notices, all for the same problem. The notices read: