Retraction Watch

Korean prosecutors seek jail time for professors in massive plagiarism scheme

SEOUL — In one of the single biggest instances of misconduct we’ve ever come across, prosecutors in South Korea are seeking up to 18 months’ prison time for 75 professors who are among those charged with plagiarizing science and engineering textbooks wholesale.

Prosecutors say that since the 1980s, 179 professors at 110 universities across the country have been publishing other authors’ books under their own name, merely swapping the covers, making only cosmetic changes to the text, and assigning them to their classes. Thirty-eight titles are involved, ranging from architecture, civil engineering, fire fighting, mechanical engineering, and chemistry. Of the 179 charged, 23 are the books’ original authors, who allegedly continued to be cut royalties from the repurposed texts and hoped to maintain good relations with the publishers for future books. The plagiarists stood to boost their CVs for their yearly high-stakes evaluations, in addition to the book contracts. Five employees from the four publishing companies involved were also charged.

Seventy-five of the professors have been formally indicted without detention on charges of copyright infringement, and will face a bench trial by judge. (Juries are rarely used in South Korean criminal proceedings.) The prosecutor’s district office in Uijeongbu, north of Seoul, is in charge of the case; the bureau’s chief, Soon-jeong Kwon, told us Continue reading Korean prosecutors seek jail time for professors in massive plagiarism scheme

Authors retract antioxidant paper after more work reverses their conclusion

The authors of a paper about the benefits of an antioxidant found in blueberries known as pterostilbene have retracted it after their subsequent research suggested the antioxidant might actually be harmful.

The paper presented evidence that the antioxidant might help rats after heart attack, in part by inhibiting cell death (apoptosis). But according to the retraction note, more work

found that pterostilbene might induce apoptosis in the heart and can be harmful, and we are now focusing on the phenomenon.

The rest of the retraction note for “Pterostilbene attenuates inflammation in rat heart subjected to ischemia-reperfusion: role of TLR4/NF-κB signaling pathway,” published in the International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, suggests that the authors would consider republishing their findings if they became more confident in the data:

Continue reading Authors retract antioxidant paper after more work reverses their conclusion

The top 10 retractions of 2015

It’s that time of year…

Our friends at The Scientist have once again asked us to compile our top 10 retractions of the year. Check out our “greatest hits” of the year. Continue reading The top 10 retractions of 2015

Science flags immune-boosting paper under investigation

Science magazine has issued an expression of concern for a paper on the discovery of a new immune-boosting protein. The paper’s findings, which received some press coverage when they came out last spring, are now under investigation by Imperial College London.

The expression of concern follows a correction noting a Western blot mix-up. Science Editor in Chief Marcia McNutt told us last month that the mistake resulted from “carelessness” on the part of the authors. But now, an investigation at Imperial College London — where Philip Ashton-Rickardt led the research — is formally looking into the findings.

That investigation is ongoing, according to the expression of concern (signed by McNutt):

Continue reading Science flags immune-boosting paper under investigation

Authors retract meningitis paper over permission — but data are in a public database

A study characterizing subtypes of the bacteria that cause bacterial meningitis is being retracted after the authors didn’t have permission to publish the data, even though the data itself remain available in a public database.

The paper, in PLOS ONE, relied on a laboratory collection of patient samples. In October, the authors retracted it because they “did not have permission” from the laboratory “to publish the data in their current form.” The data — anonymized — are now available at PubMLST.

Here’s the retraction notice, published on October 16: Continue reading Authors retract meningitis paper over permission — but data are in a public database

Author added to paper after investigation at University of Helsinki

CoverIssue An author has been added to a biochemistry paper following an investigation by the University of Helsinki.

Karen Sabatini, currently a biochemist at the University of San Diego, was erroneously left off the author list of a paper published in 2010 in Soft Matter. She apparently left Helsinki in 2010.

The circumstances may be unclear, but one thing we do know: authorship issues often take down papers entirely. Since this just warranted a correction, the mistake could have just been an oversight, rather than pointing to a larger issue.

Here’s the note for “Formation of lipid/peptide tubules by IAPP and temporin B on supported lipid membranes:”

Continue reading Author added to paper after investigation at University of Helsinki

Science retracts physics paper after magnetic field wasn’t what it seemed

Science has retracted an August paper on an interesting electric current researchers observed in a kind of material called a topological insulator. Well, a current the researchers — based at Stanford and MIT — thought they had observed.

A magnetic field with particular attributes reported in the paper seemed to provide evidence of the current. But the researchers soon discovered that the field might have been, in part, an artifact of the very device they used to detect it. The authors, along with a few other researchers, have published that subsequent finding on the physics preprint server, arXiv.

Here’s the retraction note:
Continue reading Science retracts physics paper after magnetic field wasn’t what it seemed

Breakfast study mischaracterized funding by cereal group

PLOS ONE has quickly corrected an October analysis of what children in Malaysia eat for breakfast, after the study ~~neglected to note it benefited from~~ mistakenly noted an unrestricted research grant from cereal companies supported author salaries. The grant supported the salaries of research assistants, according to the correction note.

Per the authors’ request, the journal has noted that the study received financial support from Nestlé R&D Center in Singapore and Cereal Partners Worldwide, a collaboration between General Mills Inc. and Nestlé S.A., with the goal of selling cereal outside the US and Canada. These funders provided “salaries for research assistants” for the MyBreakfast study, on which the analysis is based, according to the note.

The paper includes authors affiliated with Nestlé and Cereal Partners Worldwide, as well as a detailed “Competing interests” section, which outlines the relationships with these companies.

The correction note explains the information that should have appeared in the funding section of the article:

Continue reading Breakfast study mischaracterized funding by cereal group

Critics of 2008 concussion study failed to note NFL ties

When a 2008 paper proposed that athletes be kept out of play for four weeks following a concussion, three doctors wrote in to say that the recommendations were “irrelevant and ill advised.” One thing the trio failed to disclose, however, was their own financial ties to the National Football League.

With the release of the 2013 Frontline documentary “League of Denial: The NFL’s Concussion Crisis” and the publication of Concussion by journalist Jeanne-Marie Laskas, the evidence is growing that the NFL — with the help of doctors working as paid consultants or expert witnesses for the NFL or individual teams — has downplayed the potential of football to cause long-term brain injuries.

In a 2008, Lester Mayers of Pace University in Pleasantville, New York, published a review paper in Archives of Neurology (now JAMA Neurology), that summarized evidence from tests such as balance and gait testing, along with MRI and PET imaging studies. Mayers, who is now deceased, concluded in “Return-to-Play Criteria After Athletic Concussion: A Need for Revision” that it takes at least four weeks — rather than one or two — for the brain to heal following a concussion:

Continue reading Critics of 2008 concussion study failed to note NFL ties