“Unacceptable level of text parallels” loses neuroscientist a paper, but not her PhD

maynoothWe should probably launch a new blog just on the euphemisms used for plagiarism.

A case of “inadequate procedural or methodological practices of citation or quotation” causing an “unacceptable level of text parallels” has sunk a review paper, but not a thesis, for a PhD who studied memory consolidation at Maynooth University in Ireland. According to a statement from the school, Jennifer Moore used “poor practice of citation and attribution” in both her thesis and in a review article published with her post-graduate P.I. in Reviews in the Neurosciences.

The review article, which has been cited four times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge, will be retracted. Because there was no data fabrication and “no misleading of other scientists or laboratories,” the school will not be retracting the thesis nor taking away her PhD.

According to Google Scholar, the review has been cited 8 times. Moore now works as a neuropsychologist at the Great Ormond Street Hospital in London. We’ve contacted her for comment and will update if we hear back.

Here’s the notice for “Reconsolidation Revisited: A Review and Commentary on the Phenomenon”: Continue reading “Unacceptable level of text parallels” loses neuroscientist a paper, but not her PhD

Fraud’s long tail: Measles outbreak shows why it’s important to look downstream of retractions

Child with measles, via Wikipedia/CDC
Child with measles, via Wikipedia/CDC

As Retraction Watch readers know, public health officials are concerned about a U.S. measles outbreak. As The New York Times notes:

The United States has already had more cases of measles in the first month of 2015 than the number that is typically diagnosed in a full year. This follows a year in which the number of cases was several times more than the average since 2000, when the disease was declared eliminated in the United States.

As Retraction Watch readers also know, the discredited autism-vaccines link, fears of which lead some parents to skip their kids’ vaccations, rears its ugly head periodically. Much of the related anti-vaccine movement can be tied to a 1998 study in the Lancet by Andrew Wakefield and colleagues that was eventually retracted in 2010: Continue reading Fraud’s long tail: Measles outbreak shows why it’s important to look downstream of retractions

After 25 years, AIDS fraud comes back swinging

Screen Shot 2015-01-30 at 5.20.32 PMHenk Buck, a Dutch chemist who once claimed he could cure AIDS, is back, publishing a long explanation of why he was right all along in a journal by what Jeffrey Beall calls a possible predatory publisher.

Buck spent a few months in 1990 as a hero. In April of that year, he and his team published a paper in Science that claimed they could prevent HIV from infecting human cells. Buck went on a press blitz, appearing on TV and the radio claiming that there would be a treatment for AIDS “in a few years,” according to an 1991 comment published in Science. 

Like many things that sound too good to be true, the AIDS cure was a fraud. Continue reading After 25 years, AIDS fraud comes back swinging

Law student retracts paper from journal of Shariah law

syariahA PhD candidate in the law school of University of Malaya in Malaysia retracted a paper from a journal on Islamic law in governments, because he failed to add his deceased advisor as an author.

The paper, which calls government secularism in Bangladesh “shadow rather than substance,” was published in Jurnal Syariah, which translates to Shariah Journal. It is quite critical of the idea that the country’s Constitution can name Islam as the state religion while also claiming that it cannot grant political status to any religion.

Here’s the notice: Continue reading Law student retracts paper from journal of Shariah law

Meet the new Retraction Watch editor: Alison McCook

alison mccook
Alison McCook

Retraction Watch readers, please join us in welcoming Alison McCook to the fold.

We’re thrilled that McCook, an award-winning Philadelphia-based science writer and editor, began as editor today. Continue reading Meet the new Retraction Watch editor: Alison McCook

Unspecified questions earn central line study an expression of concern

ajicThe American Journal of Infection Control has issued an expression of concern for a paper looking at ways to reduce infections associated with central venous catheters, or central lines.

The catheters are placed directly into a large vein and end close to the heart, allowing long-term access for medication or fluid administration. According to the CDC, infections associated with central lines cause thousands of deaths and cost billions of dollars every year.

Here’s the abstract for “Comparison of central line-associated bloodstream infection rates when changing to a zero fluid displacement intravenous needleless connector in acute care settings“: Continue reading Unspecified questions earn central line study an expression of concern

Conflict of interest, figure issues net retraction for cancer paper

am j pathologyTwo 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 was published on October 16, 2014, and a withdrawal notice went up on January 16, 2015. Here’s the retraction for “Enhanced Detection and Phenotypic and Karyotypic in Situ Characterization of Circulating Tumor Cells”: Continue reading Conflict of interest, figure issues net retraction for cancer paper

Retraction Watch “mischaracterized the reason for a retraction:” Harlan Krumholz responds to a post

Harlan Krumholz
Harlan Krumholz

On Friday, we reported on the retraction and republication of a paper in The Lancet. One of the paper’s authors, Yale’s Harlan Krumholz, took issue with how we characterized the reason for the retraction. We offered him a chance to write a guest post about the situation, which we are pleased to publish below. Please see our editor’s note at the end.

Retraction Watch has grown to play a very important role in promoting responsible conduct of scientific research. Its quest to ‘track retractions as a window into the scientific process’ performs a great service to society. They also have a great responsibility to be accurate in their characterizations of retractions, as all are not alike. I was disappointed that they, in my opinion, mischaracterized the reason for a retraction and republication of one of my papers and did not want to retract their own story (do they have a process to evaluate such concerns?).  They said that the retraction occurred because of a major statistical error, when, in my opinion, it was the result of a minor statistical error that affected the results in a very minor way and had no effect on the conclusion.  That seems like a more accurate characterization to me. And it makes a difference to the impression of what happened.

Here is the story: Continue reading Retraction Watch “mischaracterized the reason for a retraction:” Harlan Krumholz responds to a post

Weekend reads: Savage peer reviews, cosmology claim bites dust, $50 million diet pill hoax

booksThis week at Retraction Watch featured polar opposites: Two new entries in our “doing the right thing” category, and one in our plagiarism euphemism parade. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Savage peer reviews, cosmology claim bites dust, $50 million diet pill hoax

Lancet retracts and republishes cardiology paper with admirable notice

logo_lancetOne of the papers from a massive heart disease study in China, published in the Lancet, has been retracted and republished after the authors noticed a statistical error.

The article, by authors from Peking Union Medical College in China, Yale University, and elsewhere, presented the results of the China PEACE-Retrospective Acute Myocardial Infarction Study, part of a national initiative to study and improve care for cardiac problems. After being posted online on June 24, 2014, the authors noticed that they’d incorrectly weighed one of the cities in their calculations, which threw off a number of national estimates.

After the corrections were made, the paper was peer-reviewed again, and reviewers stated that despite the mistakes, the original conclusions were sound.

Today is a banner day on Retraction Watch: This is our second excellent example of transparency in 24 hours, and therefore the second entry in our “doing the right thing” category. An editorial lays out exactly what happened, including a timeline, allowing scientists to feel confident they’re basing the next research step on solid and accurate data. (We also appreciate the hat tip to the Committee on Publication Ethics retraction guidelines, which we often send out to editors of bad notices as a gentle reminder.)

Here’s the notice for “ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in China from 2001 to 2011 (the China PEACE-Retrospective Acute Myocardial Infarction Study): a retrospective analysis of hospital data”: Continue reading Lancet retracts and republishes cardiology paper with admirable notice