Breakfast study mischaracterized funding by cereal group

Screen Shot 2015-12-07 at 5.42.55 PM

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

Jama neurWhen 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

Weekend reads: 179 researchers indicted; how to reject a rejection; breaking the law on clinical trial data

booksThe week at Retraction Watch featured more installments in the seemingly never-ending story of fake peer reviews. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: 179 researchers indicted; how to reject a rejection; breaking the law on clinical trial data

In more faked peer review news…10 papers pulled by Hindawi

Screen Shot 2015-12-18 at 9.57.36 AMGuess what? We’ve got more cases of fraudulent peer review to report — our second post of the day on the subject, in fact. In the latest news, Hindawi Publishing Corporation has retracted 10 papers for “fraudulent review reports,” after an investigation of more than 30 papers that had been flagged this summer.

The investigation found that author Jason Jung, a computer engineer at Yeungnam University in Korea, “was involved in submitting the fraudulent review reports” for four of the retracted papers, according to the publisher’s CEO. In the case of the other six, the authors didn’t appear to be involved.

Hindawi Publishing Corporation, which publishes over 400 journals, doesn’t ask authors for potential review suggestions — making a common route to fake peer review more difficult.  In July, when Hindawi announced it was investigating the papers, it posted a statement saying that they suspected the editors had created fake reviewer accounts.

The retraction note on Jung’s papers — identical except for the title at the beginning — explains that each paper has

Continue reading In more faked peer review news…10 papers pulled by Hindawi

“Compromised” peer review hits three papers from Nature Publishing Group

company-info-big

Nature Publishing Group is retracting three papers today, after an investigation found evidence the peer-review process had been compromised.

The publisher issued a statement saying they had notified corresponding authors and institutions associated with the three papers, which were all published last year in the journals Cancer Gene Therapy and Spinal Cord. 

Here’s the note that’s going on each of the papers, (they’re the same, except for the publication date):

Continue reading “Compromised” peer review hits three papers from Nature Publishing Group

E. coli gene paper falls to mistaken mutation

asmcoverResearchers in Germany have retracted their 2011 article in the Journal of Bacteriology after another lab pointed out a fatal error in the paper.

The article, “Escherichia coli Exports Cyclic AMP via TolC,” came from a group at Tübingen University led by Klaus Hantke. The paper focuses on the crucial role of the membrane channel TolC in exporting cyclic AMP (cAMP)-cAMP receptor protein (CRP) complex, which regulates nearly 200 E. coli genes. According to the abstract:

The data demonstrate that export of cAMP via TolC is a most efficient way of E. coli to lower high concentrations of cAMP in the cell and maintain its sensitivity in changing metabolic environments.

But the conclusions rested on a gene mutation that wasn’t quite what it seemed. Here’s the notice: Continue reading E. coli gene paper falls to mistaken mutation

Fifth retraction for Wayne State researcher who fudged figures

teresita
Teresita L. Briones

Another retraction has appeared for Teresita Briones, who used to study neuroscience at Wayne State University — the final of five papers flagged by the Office of Research Integrity for containing falsified data.

According to the ORI notice published in May, Briones “intentionally, knowingly, and recklessly engaged in research misconduct by falsifying and/or fabricating data.” This latest paper to be retracted, which looks at the role of specific receptor in chronic inflammation of nervous tissue in rats, has two figures that “were duplicated, reused and falsely relabelled, and claimed to represent different experiments,” according to the retraction note.

The retraction note for “Chronic neuroinflammation and cognitive impairment following transient global cerebral ischemia: role of fractalkine/CX3CR1 signaling,” published in the Journal of Neuroinflammation, specifies the problematic figures:

Continue reading Fifth retraction for Wayne State researcher who fudged figures

“The peer review process was compromised”: Inflammation drug paper pulled

12

A paper that screened for antibodies that target TNFα, a major source of inflammation, has been retraction after an investigation revealed the peer-review process may have been compromised.

We’ve seen the peer review process “compromised” in a handful of ways — from a mathematician who oversaw the process on several of his own papers, to some 250 papers subject to outright fake peer review. The note for this paper, published in Amino Acids, doesn’t go into details, so we can only wonder what happened in this particular case.

Here’s the note for “Structure‑based development and optimization of therapy antibody drugs against TNFα:”

Continue reading “The peer review process was compromised”: Inflammation drug paper pulled

Harper’s first-ever retraction is of a 1998 article by infamous fabricator Stephen Glass

Screen Shot 2015-12-16 at 12.50.58 PM

In the world of journalism, Stephen Glass is legendary — and not in a good way. For the first time in the 165-year-old magazine’s history, Harper’s is officially retracting a 1998 article by Glass, who was discovered to have made up quotes, people, and even entire stories.

Glass — whose deception was captured in the film “Shattered Glass” — actually requested the retraction for “Prophets and Losses,” in a letter to the editor published in the January 2016 issue of the magazine. He specifies the sections he fabricated, which Harper’s calculated affects “at least 5,647 of the 7,902 words” (more than 70 percent) of the article.

Now, as with the retractions for academic journals that we usually cover around here, Harper’s has affixed a note to the article:

Continue reading Harper’s first-ever retraction is of a 1998 article by infamous fabricator Stephen Glass

PLOS ONE issues editor’s note over controversial chronic fatigue syndrome research

Screen Shot 2015-12-15 at 11.42.08 PM

After a request for the original data was denied, PLOS ONE editors have flagged a 2012 sub analysis of a controversial clinical trial on chronic fatigue syndrome with an editor’s note.

The editor’s note — which reads like an Expression of Concern — reiterates the journal’s policy that authors make data and materials available upon request, and notes that staff are following up on “concerns” raised about the study.

There have been numerous requests for data from the “PACE” trial, as the clinical trial is known, which the authors say they have refused in order to protect patient confidentiality. On November 13, James Coyne, a psychologist at the University Medical Center, Groningen, submitted a request for the data from the PLOS ONE paper to King’s College London, where some of the authors were based. According to Coyne’s WordPress blog (he also has a blog hosted by PLOS), the journal asked him to let them know if he “had any difficulties obtaining the data.” He did — KCL denied the request last Friday (the whole letter is worth reading):

The university considers that there is a lack of value or serious purpose to your request. The university also considers that there is improper motive behind the request. The university considers that this request has caused and could further cause harassment and distress to staff.

Last author Peter White at Queen Mary University of London, UK, told us the journal had not asked them to release the data, but he would work with PLOS to address any questions:

We understand PLOS One are following up concerns expressed about the article, according to their internal processes. We will be happy to work with them to address any queries they might have regarding the research.

Here’s the editor’s note for “Adaptive Pacing, Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, Graded Exercise, and Specialist Medical Care for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis,” in full:

Continue reading PLOS ONE issues editor’s note over controversial chronic fatigue syndrome research