Five more notices for Duke pulmonary pair brings retraction tally into double digits

Two retractions and three corrections have appeared for a group of Duke researchers that already have 10+ retractions under their belts.

The reasoning behind them echoes that which we’ve seen before in notices for Michael Foster and Erin Potts-Kant: Following an inquiry from the university, the journals were informed that some of the data or results weren’t reliable, and not all of the experiments could be repeated.

A colleague aware of the case said that researchers are still working to repeat experiments from papers by Potts-Kant and Foster. It is not known how many more papers might be corrected or retracted. Duke University is fully supporting the validation of these experiments, the source told us.

Foster has retired from Duke, a spokesperson for the university confirmed. Continue reading Five more notices for Duke pulmonary pair brings retraction tally into double digits

Poll: Should retracted papers be made available for free?

RW logoRecently, Robert Geller of the University of Tokyo brought an interesting issue to our attention. In following a particular paper that had been flagged with concerns on PubPeer, he saw that the journal had eventually retracted it. Even though the journal was sold under a subscription-based model, it made the retraction notice available outside the paywall– per the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The paper itself now included a link to the retraction notice – also recommended by COPE – but the retracted article remained behind the paywall. In other words, to read the retracted paper, non-subscribers would have to pay 3300 Yen (about $30).

Geller contacted us, concerned that the journal was continuing to profit from a retracted paper.

It’s a question we’ve never considered before: Continue reading Poll: Should retracted papers be made available for free?

Now this is transparent: Retraction for plagiarism earns 4-page editor’s note

The Photogrammetric Record

A journal has retracted a paper about 3D imaging after concluding the authors used equations from another researcher without attribution — and has conveniently included a detailed editorial explaining exactly what happened.

It’s rare for us to see a journal be so transparent in explaining what went wrong with one of its papers, so we’re thanking Stuart Granshaw, from Denbighshire in Wales, UK, the editor of The Photogrammetric Record, for “doing the right thing.”

Even the retraction note is reasonably forthcoming: Continue reading Now this is transparent: Retraction for plagiarism earns 4-page editor’s note

Weekend reads: Calls for retraction a bad idea?; is scientific fraud a crime?

booksThis week at Retraction Watch featured an unusual excuse for missing data, and a guilty plea in court for misconduct. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Calls for retraction a bad idea?; is scientific fraud a crime?

Lancet issues expression of concern for 2011 Macchiarini paper

Paolo Macchiarini
Paolo Macchiarini

The Lancet has tagged an expression of concern onto a seminal 2011 paper by Paolo Macchiarini, the Italian surgeon whose work and conduct outside the operating room has earned months of  heavy criticism that recently culminated in his dismissal from the Karolinska Institutet.

“Tracheobronchial transplantation with a stem-cell-seeded bioartificial nanocomposite: a proof-of-concept study,” which described the first case of a transplant using an artificial trachea seeded with the patient’s own stem cells, now bears an expression of concern from The Lancet editors, citing ongoing investigations. The journal has also removed three more authors from the paper, upon their request.

The expression of concern essentially presents the timeline of the controversy that led the journal to make this move:

Continue reading Lancet issues expression of concern for 2011 Macchiarini paper

Concerns attached to three more papers by retraction-laden management researcher

Fred Walumbwa
Fred Walumbwa

Fred Walumbwa, a management researcher with eight seven retractions, has received three expressions of concern from two journals after he failed to provide raw data following an investigation into potential errors.

In the past, Walumbwa has said he only keeps data until his papers are published, but a lack of raw data has become a common theme in his notices, which now also include four corrections, and one other EOC (making a new total of four). There are no standard rules about how long to store raw data, but one journal that issued two of the new EOCs has since updated its submission policy to require that authors keep data for at least five years.

Walumbwa currently works at Florida International University. When concerns about the statistics were raised about five of his papers in Personnel Psychology, the journal conducted an investigation that led to flagging two of those articles, the expression of concern explains:

Continue reading Concerns attached to three more papers by retraction-laden management researcher

Poop paper flushed due to possible sample contamination

cover (3)The authors of a paper on a new probiotic strain of bacteria found in pig feces have retracted it from Animal Science Journal after discovering some of the bacteria might have been contaminated.

Readers likely know by now how easy it is for this to happen, as we frequently report on retractions due to similar reasons. Like other instances of mistaken cell identity, the authors of this 2013 paper realized the mistake following further tests of the bacteria used in the experiment.

The retraction for “Isolation, characterization, and effect of administration in vivo, a novel probiotic strain from pig feces”

Continue reading Poop paper flushed due to possible sample contamination

What if we tried to replicate papers before they’re published?

Martin Schweinsberg
Martin Schweinsberg
Eric Uhlmann
Eric Uhlmann

We all know replicability is a problem – consistently, many papers in various fields fail to replicate when put to the test. But instead of testing findings after they’ve gone through the rigorous and laborious process of publication, why not verify them beforehand, so that only replicable findings make their way into the literature? That is the principle behind a recent initiative called The Pipeline Project (covered in The Atlantic today), in which 25 labs checked 10 unpublished studies from the lab of one researcher in social psychology. We spoke with that researcher, Eric Uhlmann (also last author on the paper), and first author Martin Schweinsberg, both based at INSEAD.

Retraction Watch: What made you decide to embark upon this project? Continue reading What if we tried to replicate papers before they’re published?

Neuroscientist pleads guilty in court to fraud, gets two-year suspended sentence

Bruce Murdoch
Bruce Murdoch

A Parkinson’s researcher pleaded guilty to fraud in court this morning in Brisbane, Australia, and received a two-year suspended sentence.

Court sentences for fraud are rare, to say the least. This one follows an investigation by Bruce Murdoch‘s former employer, the University of Queensland, into 92 papers — resulting in the retraction of three papers co-authored by Caroline Barwood, also facing fraud charges. The investigation was unable to find any evidence that published research cited in court had been ever carried out.

The Australian reported this morning that Murdoch:

Continue reading Neuroscientist pleads guilty in court to fraud, gets two-year suspended sentence

How much do oil spills cost? Controversy over paper oozes into larger debate

622871A controversy surrounding a 2014 Journal of Environmental Management paper has tapped into a larger scientific and economic issue — how to tally up the damage after an oil spill.

The original paper, called “A revealed preference approach to valuing non-market recreational fishing losses from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill,” estimates the 2010 explosion of the BP-owned drilling rig cost the Gulf-Coast recreational saltwater angler fishing industry alone nearly $600 million. But Kenneth Train, an economics professor at the University of California, Berkeley has questioned the methods used — both publicly, in a comment that was published in the Journal of Environmental Management, and privately through personal calls with the authors. The first author says Train asked them to retract the paper; he denies ever making that request. While Train, in his comment, says he doubts the accuracy of the $600 million estimate, he does not provide an alternative number.

Train was hired to review the study by BP, which owned the well that spilled millions of oil barrels into the Gulf.

Calculating the cost of oil spills is controversial. Since the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989, Continue reading How much do oil spills cost? Controversy over paper oozes into larger debate