Hospitalization of participant in child psych study prompted misconduct inquiry: Letter

Mani Pavuluri
Mani Pavuluri

The adverse event that prompted the University of Illinois at Chicago to shutter three trials by a child psychiatrist occurred when one of the study subjects was hospitalized.

According to a 2013 letter obtained by Retraction Watch through a public records request, the subject was admitted to a 10-day inpatient treatment program after exhibiting an increase in irritability and aggression, which prompted researcher Mani Pavuluri to notify the university’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) in January of that year. As a result, the university halted three studies by Pavuluri, sent out letters to 350 research subjects, and launched a misconduct inquiry.

Here’s how the document describes the event (with some details blacked out): Continue reading Hospitalization of participant in child psych study prompted misconduct inquiry: Letter

Who wrote this chem paper? Author claims her name was removed without consent

Spectrochimica ActaA researcher is claiming that her former PhD students impersonated her to remove her name as a co-author on a 2015 study.   

According to an editor’s note, published in Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy, the journal received confirmation from all three authors that the aforementioned researcher should be removed from the author list during proofing stage. However, the researcher whose name was omitted — Nahid Nishat of the Jamia Millia Islamia in Jamia Nagar, New Delhi, India — later contacted the journal claiming that she didn’t okay this move.  

Nishat told Retraction Watch that she believes the two listed authors on the paper wrote to the journal on her behalf to remove her name:  Continue reading Who wrote this chem paper? Author claims her name was removed without consent

Weekend reads: Bad peer reviews; crimes against science; misconduct at Oxford

booksThe week at Retraction Watch featured an exclusive about a prominent heart researcher being dismissed, and a look at signs that a paper’s authorship was bought. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Bad peer reviews; crimes against science; misconduct at Oxford

Authors pull malaria study after arguing over the results

journal-of-advanced-pharmaceutical-technology-researchResearchers have retracted a study about malaria infections in India after follow-up research unveiled problems with the data and set off a dispute among the authors.

According to the notice, when the authors continued their research on the same topic, some of the new data raised concerns about what was reported in the 2010 paper. That set off a “number of disputes between authors,” which led them to retract the paper.

This account was supported by the study’s first and corresponding author, Naitik Trivedi, from the A.R. College of Pharmacy & G.H. Patel Institute of Pharmacy in Anand, Gujarat, India. Trivedi told us he believes the previous study didn’t include some relevant parameters, which affected the results. 

Trivedi noted that all the authors agree to the retraction, adding: Continue reading Authors pull malaria study after arguing over the results

Materials researcher falsified data in two studies, probe reveals

advanced-materialsA materials journal has retracted two 2013 papers, citing an investigation at Pennsylvania State University that concluded the first author falsified data.

According to the retraction notice in Advanced Materials, Mehdi Ghaffari — formerly based at Penn State — was solely responsible for the misconduct. Ghaffari’s LinkedIn page says he finished his PhD at Penn State in 2014, and now works as an independent consultant in New York, after a stint as a postdoc at Procter and Gamble.

A Penn State spokesperson sent us this statement:  Continue reading Materials researcher falsified data in two studies, probe reveals

Post you may have missed: Top economists publish in predatory journals

A technical glitch prevented another story from reaching our email subscribers earlier today, so in case you missed it:

Like Retraction Watch? Consider making a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post, or subscribe to our daily digest. Click here to review our Comments Policy. For a sneak peek at what we’re working on, click here.

Even top economists publish in predatory journals, study finds

repec

Top-ranking economists sometimes publish papers in open access journals deemed potentially “predatory,” according to a new analysis.

The findings contradict previous results that show that researchers who publish papers in “potential, possible, or probable” predatory journals (as defined by librarian Jeffrey Beall) are largely inexperienced.

According to the study, 27 of the most eminent economists (within the top 5% of their field) have published nearly 5% of their papers in predatory journals. These researchers published 31 papers in predatory journals in 2015 alone.

The finding — which is not yet peer reviewed — comes as a “big surprise,” co-author Frederick Wallace of the Gulf University for Science and Technology in West Mishref, Kuwait, told Retraction Watch. Continue reading Even top economists publish in predatory journals, study finds

Prominent heart researcher dismissed by Ontario university; colleagues appeal

karmazyn1
Morris Karmazyn

Earlier this month, Morris Karmazyn, an award-winning cardiovascular researcher who’s published hundreds of papers, was called into a meeting with the office of faculty relations at the University of Western Ontario, and terminated.

The reason? A series of image problems in some of his papers, raised by a former member of his lab. When Karmazyn, Canada Research Chair in Experimental Cardiology, was told it was a case of “misconduct,” he was floored: Continue reading Prominent heart researcher dismissed by Ontario university; colleagues appeal

Journals flag two papers by psychologist Jens Förster

forster-j-a1Journals have flagged two papers by prominent social psychologist Jens Förster — whose work has been subject to much scrutiny — over concerns regarding the validity of the data. 

Förster already has three retractions, following an investigation by his former employer, the University of Amsterdam (UvA) in the Netherlands. In 2014, we reported on the first retraction for Förster for one of three studies with odd patterns that were flagged by the UvA investigation, a 2012 paper in Social Psychological and Personality Science; subsequently, the Netherlands Board on Research Integrity concluded that data had been manipulated. Three statistical experts from the UvA then carried out a more in-depth analysis of 24 publications by Förster, and found eight to have “strong evidence for low scientific veracity.”

Last year, Förster agreed to retract two more papers as part of a deal with the German Society for Psychology (DGPs); those retractions appeared earlier this year. All three papers that Förster has lost until now are from the “strong evidence for low scientific veracity” category. Recently, two more of Förster’s papers from the same category were flagged with notices, but not retracted.

One “statement of institutional concern,” issued by Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, reads:
Continue reading Journals flag two papers by psychologist Jens Förster

Can you plagiarize by mistake? In three papers?

Journal of Asian Public Policy An author who claimed that he accidentally plagiarized material in a retracted paper has lost two more — again, for plagiarism.

Earlier this year, we shared a 900-word statement in which Christopher S. Collins at Azusa Pacific University explained he unintentionally plagiarized a paper by taking notes on it — including writing down whole sentences — and using them in his own paper, forgetting the original source. Did the same thing happen three times?

We’re asking ourselves that question after finding two more retractions for Collins for plagiarism. One lists five different sources that he incorporated without attribution.

Here’s the retraction notice for “A higher education learning profile in the Asia-Pacific,” published in the Journal of Asian Public Policy:

Continue reading Can you plagiarize by mistake? In three papers?