Weekend reads: Sensationalism in science journalism and PR; Beall’s predatory publisher list grows

booksHappy New Year! This week, we took a look back at 2014. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: Sensationalism in science journalism and PR; Beall’s predatory publisher list grows

AIDS denialism paper retracted after Jeffrey Beall draws attention to it

scirpA paper arguing that HIV does not cause AIDS has been retracted a few weeks after Jeffrey Beall, who tracks predatory publishers, called attention to it on his blog.

Here’s what Beall wrote about the paper on December 16:

The article is entitled “Basic Principles Underlying Human Physiology[1], and you don’t have to be a scientist to know that it’s junk, for it is a manifestation of AIDS denialism. The conclusion’s first paragraph says,

HIV is not etiologically involved in AIDS. It is just a common retrovirus found in AIDS conjuncturally. There is only AIDS that may not be strictly associated neither to a primary immune deficiency nor to an acquired immune deficiency. Actually, heart failure represents the causal factor of AIDS and many other “primary” immune deficiencies (p. 1821).

Now, in that article’s place, this retraction, dated December 19, appears: Continue reading AIDS denialism paper retracted after Jeffrey Beall draws attention to it

Fake peer review fells two more papers

medicineThe number of papers retracted for fake peer reviews — well in excess of 100, by our count — continues to grow.

The latest to join the list are “Rebamipide plus proton pump inhibitor versus proton pump inhibitor alone in treatment of endoscopic submucosal dissection-induced gastric ulcer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials” and “Association study of TGFBR2 and miR-518 gene polymorphisms with age at natural menopause, premature ovarian failure and early menopause among Chinese Han women,” both published in 2014 in Medicine.

Here’s how both notices, signed by senior publisher Duncan A. MacRae, read: Continue reading Fake peer review fells two more papers

Retraction Watch: A year in review, an accounting, and thanks

logo2014 was quite a year for Retraction Watch. We reported on hundreds of retractions — here are our top 10 — but we also took some big steps in our development. Some highlights: Continue reading Retraction Watch: A year in review, an accounting, and thanks

PubPeer Selections: “Too remarkable to believe;” a super-duplicate publication; what was acceptable in 2002?

pubpeerHere’s another installment of PubPeer Selections: Continue reading PubPeer Selections: “Too remarkable to believe;” a super-duplicate publication; what was acceptable in 2002?

Retractions follow revelations of misconduct by diabetes biotech

diabetes careSeveral months after a drug company cancelled development of a potential diabetes cure because it found evidence that a biotech they had recently acquired had committed misconduct in studies of the drug, two retractions of relevant studies have appeared.

The research involves DiaPep277, which, as Josh Levy explained here in September, “would cause the immune system to stop attacking beta cells,” the cells in the pancreas that produce insulin. But Hyperion Therapeutics, which had acquired DiaPep277 developer Andromeda Biotech in June, announced in September that it had

uncovered evidence that certain employees of Andromeda Biotech, Ltd., which Hyperion acquired in June 2014, engaged in serious misconduct, including collusion with a third-party biostatistics firm in Israel to improperly receive un-blinded DIA-AID 1 trial data and to use such data in order to manipulate the analyses to obtain a favorable result.

The retractions are both of papers published in Diabetes Care in May 2014. Here’s the notice for “Treatment of Recent-Onset Type 1 Diabetic Patients With DiaPep277: Results of a Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Phase 3 Trial:” Continue reading Retractions follow revelations of misconduct by diabetes biotech

Second retraction appears for Mart Bax

ethnosRetired Dutch anthropologist Mart Bax made a career out of making up papers, many of them on the Bosnian genocide.

He retired from the Free University in Amsterdam in 2002. It wasn’t until 2013 that the university published a report indicating that Bax never published 61 of the papers he listed on his CV, and many of the real articles were based on fabricated data.

Publisher Taylor and Francis retracted one of Bax’s papers from Ethnic and Racial Studies in April. Now they’re retracting a second, from Ethnos, using almost identical language.

Here’s the notice: Continue reading Second retraction appears for Mart Bax

Stem cell study retraction produces useless notice

int j stem cellsWe don’t have much to go on here, for a retraction from the International Journal of Stem Cells. 

Here’s what we do know: Dental researchers at several universities in Egypt, including Cairo University, Future University, and Misr University published a paper together. According to the article, they gave dogs oral ulcers and then injected the ulcers with either fat-derived stem cells, bone marrow stem cells, or saline. The researchers conclude that the fat stem cells, also known as adipose derived stem cells, helped the dogs heal.

Unfortunately, we have no idea what went wrong, because the retraction notice is useless. Here in its entirety is the notice for “Adipose Stem Cells as Alternatives for Bone Marrow Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Oral Ulcer Healing”: Continue reading Stem cell study retraction produces useless notice

Weekend reads: “Plagiarism is for losers;” the retraction war; a step back for science in 2014

booksWelcome to our last Weekend Reads of 2014. This week featured our second annual Top 10 Retractions list. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Continue reading Weekend reads: “Plagiarism is for losers;” the retraction war; a step back for science in 2014

Nature Cell Biology insulin paper retracted over antibody problems

nature cell biologyNature Cell Biology article on insulin regulation has been retracted after scientists noted that the antibodies used in their research were not as specific as they had previously believed.

The notice is clear on the problems with the science, which together “call into question the main conclusions of the paper.” Three of the paper’s five authors were employed at Novartis at the time of publication.

Here’s the notice for “Wolfram syndrome 1 and adenylyl cyclase 8 interact at the plasma membrane to regulate insulin production and secretion”: Continue reading Nature Cell Biology insulin paper retracted over antibody problems