What happens before a retraction? A behind-the-scenes look from COPE

charonresize
Charon Pierson

Ever wonder how editors figure out whether a paper should be corrected, retracted, or left as-is? For a window into that crucial decision-making process, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) publishes a number of anonymized cases per year, in which they weigh in on a dilemma faced by a journal editor. The organization has weighed in on more than 500 such situations since 1997. We spoke with Charon Pierson, Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners and the Secretary of the Trustee Board and Council at COPE to find out more information about these cases – including the one that affected her most.

Retraction Watch: How does one of the COPE cases get opened? Continue reading What happens before a retraction? A behind-the-scenes look from COPE

Survey: Retraction Watch readers, tell us about yourself

Since you know about us, we’d like to know more about you, readers. So we’ve created the Retraction Watch User Survey. We’d love it if you could take a few minutes to fill out these 15 questions, which will let us know a little bit about yourself, how you use Retraction Watch, and any changes or additions you’d like to see.

Your responses will inform some planning work we are currently doing around the future of Retraction Watch. (Don’t worry, we’re not going anywhere. We just want to make the site better and more useful to you, and to make sure we can sustain and grow it while continuing to make it freely available.) Please know that all data gathered for this survey will be used for internal purposes only, and will remain de-identified and confidential.  Continue reading Survey: Retraction Watch readers, tell us about yourself

NEJM: No plan to clarify wording that led to allegations of breached confidentiality

NEJMThe New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) has no plans to change the wording of an article that led to allegations of breached patient confidentiality and caused a minor social media firestorm this past weekend, the journal told Retraction Watch.

The paragraph in question appeared in an essay by Lisa Rosenbaum chronicling the history of power morcellation, a technique to remove gynecological organs that the FDA has subjected to a “black box warning” because it can also spread tumors: Continue reading NEJM: No plan to clarify wording that led to allegations of breached confidentiality

FDA bans trial coordinator who pocketed patient funds and went to prison

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has permanently debarred a clinical trial coordinator from working on drug applications after he swapped patient stool samples for his own, and pocketed the money earmarked for patients — along with forging patient records, lab work, and doctors’ signatures.

The debarment is moot for time being — last year, Wesley McQuerry was sentenced to three years in prison for his misdeeds, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

The FDA’s debarment, effective March 18, provides more details: Continue reading FDA bans trial coordinator who pocketed patient funds and went to prison

Environmental journal pulls two papers for “compromised” peer review

EGAHEnvironmental Geochemistry and Health has retracted two papers after an investigation suggested that the peer-review process had been compromised.

In case you’re counting, we’ve now logged approximately 300 retractions stemming from likely faked or rigged peer review.

The retraction note — which is the same for both papers — explains a bit more about the situation: Continue reading Environmental journal pulls two papers for “compromised” peer review

Antifungal drug paper didn’t have institution’s approval

Authors have pulled a paper on an antifungal drug that is potentially toxic because it lacked final approval from their institution.

The study describes a patient who had experienced liver toxicity after taking voriconazole. During the study, the authors re-administered the drug to the patient using “a slow dose titration.” But their institution didn’t approve the study before it was published online.

Here’s the retraction note for “Successful Rechallenge with Voriconazole following Medication-Induced Hepatotoxicity,” published in Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.  Continue reading Antifungal drug paper didn’t have institution’s approval

Corrections chip away at asbestos paper for conflicts of interest, “misleading” citation

EBPHThe journal Epidemiology Biostatistics and Public Health has issued back-to-back corrections for a 2015 paper after the authors failed to disclose conflicts of interest with the asbestos industry and included an “erroneous citation.”

The mistaken citation was more than just a clerical error, critics argue — it undermines one of the key arguments of the paper, “Critical reappraisal of Balangero chrysotile and mesothelioma risk,” which disputes claims that an asbestos mine in northwest Italy was responsible for numerous cases of an aggressive form of cancer called mesothelioma. The authors, led by Edward Ilgren formerly of Oxford University, claim that “myriad sources” of other forms of asbestos—rather than the asbestos produced at the mine, called chrysotile—exist in the region “to account for the alleged cases.”

However, according to a recently added correction, the citation does not support one of the authors’ claims about how other forms of asbestos arrived at the mine area.

Continue reading Corrections chip away at asbestos paper for conflicts of interest, “misleading” citation

Weekend reads: Publishing hypocrisy; false truths; scientists go rogue

booksThis week at Retraction Watch featured a heartfelt essay by John Ioannidis on what he called the hijacking of evidence-based medicine, as well as the story of a peer reviewer who stole text for his own paper. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Publishing hypocrisy; false truths; scientists go rogue

Duplicate publication uprooted from plant journal

AJPS2015012714522401The American Journal of Plant Sciences has retracted a duplicate publication — and is considerately describing what happened in a checklist that accompanies the retraction note.

The checklist is similar to one that friend of Retraction Watch Hervé Maisonneuve has proposed to the Committee on Publication Ethics.

The retracted paper shares one author with the paper that it duplicated from: Irfan Talib, whose affiliation is listed on the retracted paper as the University of Agriculture in Pakistan.

Here are the relevant fields on the checklist for “Study of Genetic Diversity in Germplasm of Upland Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) in Pakistan” (a PDF on this page includes the checklist and the original paper):

Continue reading Duplicate publication uprooted from plant journal

Retracted anesthesia study “was not conducted in reality”

coverWe’ve come across a new way to say the data in a paper are not reliable:

It has been found that the study represented in the article was not conducted in reality.

That’s from the retraction note for a paper that Anesthesia Essays and Researches has retracted for data falsification. The rest of the retraction note for “Intrathecal dextmedetomidine to reduce shoulder tip pain in laparoscopic cholecystectomies under spinal anesthesia” explains:

Continue reading Retracted anesthesia study “was not conducted in reality”