Sometimes, even a short notice catches our attention. Such was the case with a recent retraction issued by Oncotarget for a 2016 paper related to the genetics that drive cancer. Here’s the notice:
Here’s a rather odd case: When readers raised issues about some of the images in a 2008 cancer paper, the authors issued a correction last year. But when readers asked additional questions about the corrected images, the authors decided to retract the paper entirely, along with its correction. Both the original and corrected versions were questioned on … Continue reading Huh? Cancer paper gets retracted because of its correction
Researchers in China have retracted a 2016 cancer imaging paper because they introduced “a plethora of data errors” while preparing the article for submission. Although the retraction notice provides no details on what these errors are or how exactly they occurred, it does point the finger at the researchers, explaining that the data errors happened as a … Continue reading A “plethora of data errors” prompts authors to retract oncology paper
Following an investigation, a genetics journal has pulled six cancer papers published this year for plagiarizing from other sources. According to an excerpt from the retraction notice in Genetics and Molecular Research, the journal has “strong reason to believe that the peer review process was [a] failure,” and has alerted the authors’ institutions. The notice … Continue reading Journal cleans the house by retracting 6 cancer papers for plagiarism
We’ve been writing about retractions for six years, and things tend to fall into easily recognizable categories — plagiarism, fabricated data, rigged peer review, etc. So it’s always interesting to come across a notice sui generis, such as one that appeared in July in OncoTargets and Therapy, a Dove title, about a new way to detect … Continue reading Beg pardon? Researchers pull cancer paper because, well, um, you see …
The week at Retraction Watch featured news that one in 25 papers in a massive screen includes inappropriate image manipulation, and of the eighth and ninth retractions for a neuroscience team. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
We’ve seen many cases of researchers creating fake email addresses to impersonate reviewers that usher their paper to publication. But in the latest fake email incident, a journal is retracting a paper on liver cancer after the first author created a phony address for the last and corresponding author. Both are researchers at Zhengzhou University in China. This … Continue reading Fake email address — for author, not reviewer — fells another paper
A federal investigation into a paper on prostate cancer has now led to a retraction. In an unusual twist, it happened following a request from the animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). In January, the Office of Research Integrity reported that corresponding author Dong Xiao “intentionally fabricated data” in an Oncotarget study of how a steroid inhibits … Continue reading Prostate cancer paper flagged by ORI is retracted following PETA prompt
Here’s another installment of PubPeer Selections:
Two major problems sunk this cancer paper. For one, many of the images were copied from another paper. In addition, one of the authors did not disclose that he was the president of a related company, nor that his company provided reagents for the experiments. It’s not clear when the paper was published, but The paper … Continue reading Conflict of interest, figure issues net retraction for cancer paper