The Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC) has asked a journal to retract two papers after revealing a former employee manipulated data.
The report does not name the individual nor the journal, but notes that they work in a molecular field, and are currently employed by a university outside The Netherlands.
According to a news release about the report: Continue reading Leiden requests two retractions over misconduct
Many figures in four papers by a research team in Malaysia contain duplication or manipulation, a university committee has found, calling for multiple retractions.
We learned about issues with three of the papers, including one in Scientific Reports, earlier this week when they were the talk of Twitter. As journals issued expressions of concern, and an expert wondered how the papers passed peer review at all, the first author, a researcher at the University of Malaya (UM), denied allegations of duplication.
UM was alerted to allegations of misconduct in the Scientific Reports paper last Saturday, and according to a statement published today:
Continue reading Figures questioned online were manipulated, says Malaysia investigation
A chair of a neurobiology department in China has requested the retraction of a paper on which he was unwittingly listed as the lead and corresponding author.
How could a corresponding author — you know, the person with whom the journal corresponds about the paper — be added without their consent? It seems that a fraudulent email account was involved in this case. The address listed for Cheng He, a researcher at the Second Military Medical University in Shanghai, didn’t belong to him, said a spokesperson for Springer.
According to the retraction notice for “Identification of the Interaction Between the Human Homologue of the Arabidopsis COP9 Signalosome Subunit 7a and Olig1:”
Continue reading Fake email for corresponding author forces neuro journal to retract paper
SEOUL — When does plagiarizing an entire textbook not violate copyright law?
In a South Korean court, apparently.
On Wednesday, a district judge found ten professors who plagiarized textbooks guilty of copyright infringement—but ruled that four professors who added their names to subsequent printings were not guilty.
This case, which began as an alleged plagiarism ring of obscure science and engineering textbooks, could now rewrite the nation’s existing copyright law and spark debate on the high social standing enjoyed by professors. Continue reading In Korean textbook scheme, some plagiarists found not guilty
A PhD student who was supposed to complete part of an experiment passed the job on to a third party company, which in turn provided figures that were plagiarized and fabricated. That’s according to the corresponding author of the paper, which has now been retracted.
Hong Ren, affiliated with Xi’an Jiao Tong University in China, told us that he decided to delay the student’s graduation after he discovered that the student had passed off the work.
It’s not at all obvious that a third party was involved from the brief retraction notice for “EMT phenotype is induced by increased Src kinase activity via Src-mediated caspase-8 phosphorylation:”
Continue reading Third party company botched student’s doctoral work, says biologist
JAMA has announced it does not intend to retract a 2005 review article about fetal pain, despite requests from anti-abortion activists who claim it has been misused in debates about the procedure.
Earlier this month, JAMA told one anti-abortion critic that it would take a look at the paper, which suggested that fetuses can’t feel pain before the third trimester. Critics have argued that newer findings have shown pain sensation appears earlier in gestation, yet the 2005 data continue to be cited in the discussion around abortion. What’s more, critics have lamented that some of the authors failed to mention their ties to the abortion industry.
But in a letter sent yesterday to James Agresti, Howard Bauchner, Editor in Chief at JAMA and The JAMA Network, writes: Continue reading JAMA: No plan to retract article on fetal pain, despite outcry from anti-abortion activists
Multiple investigations have been launched into allegations of blatant duplications by a research group in Malaysia.
Last week, users alleged on Twitter that three papers by the same team included pictures of cells that were copied and pasted. First author Nima Samie, affiliated with University of Malaya in Malaysia, denied the accusations — but both the Malaysian government and now two journals sees cause for further investigation.
Frontiers in Pharmacology published an expression of concern this morning:
A investigation in Singapore has failed to turn up primary data that formed the basis for 11 papers from one author about special education.
In addition, a forensic investigation at Noel Chia’s institution — the National Institute of Education in Singapore, part of Nanyang Technological University (NTU) — suggested that some signatures providing parental consent might not be authentic. The investigation was also unable to authenticate the Malaysia-based organization Chia said collected the data on his behalf.
Nine of the papers appear in the Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals (JAASEP), which has declared it plans to retract every article Chia has ever published with them (we’ve counted an additional nine papers).
Much of the information we know about the case stems from the unusually detailed — 3,000 word — retraction notice from JAASEP:
Continue reading Journal retracting at least nine articles by education researcher
The former director of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences at the U.S. National Institutes of Health has a new job. On July 1st, biochemist Jeremy Berg will take the helm as the editor-in-chief of Science. He’s currently the associate senior vice chancellor for science strategy and planning in the health sciences at the University of Pittsburgh. We spoke to him about challenges he’ll be facing in his new role: treating science’s replication problem, boosting transparency, and making papers as widely available as possible.
You told us in an earlier conversation that diagnosing and treating science’s replication problem is major issue in publishing. Can you give us some specifics about how you plan to address it at Science? Continue reading How does Jeremy Berg plan to address reproducibility in Science?
The authors of a study about spinal fusion surgery have retracted it after realizing the cohort study was described as a prospective, randomized trial.
The last author told us he believed the incorrect wording was added to the paper — and the title — by accident. Even though he said the journal Spine suggested correcting it, the authors chose to retract the paper entirely.
The abstract of the study describes the design as a:
Prospective, randomized, controlled trial.
But according to the retraction notice for “Prospective, randomized, controlled trial of silicate-substituted calcium phosphate versus rhBMP-2 in a minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion,” the abstract was not accurate:
Continue reading Authors retract surgery study that claimed to be randomized but wasn’t