Search Results for: "plos one"

Are US behavioral science researchers more likely to exaggerate their results?

When Retraction Watch readers think of problematic psychology research, their minds might naturally turn to Diederik Stapel, who now has 54 retractions under his belt. Dirk Smeesters might also tickle the neurons. But a look at our psychology category shows that psychology retractions are an international phenomenon. (Remember Marc Hauser?) And a new paper in … Continue reading Are US behavioral science researchers more likely to exaggerate their results?

Birds of a feather: Authors who play games with fowl data earn multiple retractions

A group of animal health researchers from the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences have lost their 2009 paper in the Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology because they’d published the data in at least four other articles. The paper, “Two Novel Duck Antibacterial Peptides, Avian β-Defensins 9 and 10, with Antimicrobial Activity,” reported that:

“Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?” New study tries to answer

The title of this post is the title of a new study in PLOS ONE by three researchers whose names Retraction Watch readers may find familiar: Grant Steen, Arturo Casadevall, and Ferric Fang. Together and separately, they’ve examined retraction trends in a number of papers we’ve covered. Their new paper tries to answer a question … Continue reading “Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?” New study tries to answer

A mega-correction for Rui Curi, whose lawyers threatened to sue Science-Fraud.org

A Brazilian researcher whose legal threats helped lead to the shutdown of Science-Fraud.org and who has had two papers retracted has had to correct another paper. The fourth correction for Rui Curi — and we’d call it a mega-correction — is of a paper in PLOS ONE. Curi is the fourth out of 11 authors; … Continue reading A mega-correction for Rui Curi, whose lawyers threatened to sue Science-Fraud.org

Quorum sensing paper retracted when new study suggests compounds weren’t what they seemed

The authors of a paper on quorum sensing — in simple terms, how bacteria “talk” to one another — have retracted it after another group’s findings led them to discover that the mixture they used weren’t what they thought. The refreshingly detailed retraction notice in PLOS ONE explains:

Half of researchers have reported trouble reproducing published findings: MD Anderson survey

Readers of this blog — and anyone who has been following the Anil Potti saga — know that MD Anderson Cancer Center was the source of initial concerns about the reproducibility of the studies Potti, and his supervisor, Joseph Nevins, were publishing in high profile journals. So the Houston institution has a rep for dealing … Continue reading Half of researchers have reported trouble reproducing published findings: MD Anderson survey

A retracted Cell paper reappears elsewhere, sans author who didn’t sign retraction notice

One of the things we try to do here at Retraction Watch is keep tabs on retracted work that appears again the literature. We did that twice in one day last year, once with a paper about chimps that was retracted from Biology Letters and ended up in the Journal of Human Evolution, and then … Continue reading A retracted Cell paper reappears elsewhere, sans author who didn’t sign retraction notice

Not immune: Jesús A. Lemus earns another Expression of Concern

Jesús A. Lemus, the Spanish researcher whose work has left a lot of people questioning his data, has another Expression of Concern for his resume. Here’s the notice, from Functional Ecology:

Lemus, Stapel each rack up another retraction

The retraction counts keep mounting for two Retraction Watch frequent flyers. First, Diederik Stapel’s 26th retraction, according to our count. Psychologist Stapel admitted to making up data in dozens of studies, and is also facing a criminal inquiry for misuse of funds. Here’s the notice:

Most retraction notices don’t involve research misconduct or flawed data: new study

October, apparently, is “studies of retractions month.” First there was a groundbreaking study in PNAS, then an NBER working paper, and yesterday PLoS Medicine alerted us to a paper their sister journal, PLoS ONE, published last week, “A Comprehensive Survey of Retracted Articles from the Scholarly Literature.” The study, by Michael L. Grieneisen and Minghua Zhang, … Continue reading Most retraction notices don’t involve research misconduct or flawed data: new study