Another busy week at Retraction Watch. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Continue reading Weekend reads: Publish a paper, get $10,000!; Lancet editor Horton under fire
Here’s a physics retraction whose use of an exclamation point — the only one we’ve ever seen in a retraction notice! — makes the editors’ exasperation palpable.
It’s also the the fourth retraction for R. K. Singhal, of the University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, India. Behold the notice for “Magnetic behavior of functionally modified spinel Ni0.4Ca0.6Fe2O4 nanoferrite,” in the International Journal of Modern Physics B: Continue reading Enthusiastic retraction and retracted correction mark loss of researcher’s fourth and fifth papers
A paper on delirium in older adults has been withdrawn by a geriatric journal, after the clinical hospital notified the journal of problems in the data.
Here’s the notice for “Issues Associated with Delirium Severity Among Older Patients,” which first appeared in BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care: Continue reading “Irregularities” lead to retraction of paper on delirium
How much money does scientific fraud waste?
That’s an important question, with an answer that may help determine how much attention some people pay to research misconduct. But it’s one that hasn’t been rigorously addressed.
Seeking some clarity, Andrew Stern, Arturo Casadevall, Grant Steen, and Ferric Fang looked at cases in which the Office of Research Integrity had determined there was misconduct in particular papers. In their study, published today in eLife: Continue reading “Research misconduct accounts for a small percentage of total funding”: Study
A pair of researchers at the University of Maryland have retracted a third paper.
Here’s the unhelpful Journal of Biological Chemistry notice for “Inhibitor of Nrf2 (INrf2 or Keap1) protein degrades Bcl-xL via phosphoglycerate mutase 5 and controls cellular apoptosis,” by Suryakant Niture and Anil Jaiswal: Continue reading University of Maryland duo notches third retraction
It’s always amusing to see how far a journal will bend over backward to avoid coming out and calling something “plagiarism.”
We’ve got two notices for you that exemplify the phenomenon, which we discussed in our Lab Times column last year.
The first, an article about apartheid, was presented at a student conference and published in the Polyvocia: The SOAS Journal of Graduate Research. It was later retracted because the author “should have used quotation marks around material written verbatim from that source.”
Here’s the notice: Continue reading Mistaken punctuation, misreferencing, and other euphemisms for plagiarism
Sometimes plagiarism can be tricky to catch when an article has to be translated before publication.
That seems to be the case for two papers out of a hospital in Canakkale, Turkey, that discussed results of two different kinds of heart surgery.
Here’s the retraction notice for “The effects of 21 and 23 milimeter aortic valve prosthesis on hemodynamic performance and functional capacity in young adults,” in the Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences: Continue reading The tell-tale heart: Cardiovascular surgeons notch two retractions for plagiarism
A researcher at Tufts University has retracted a paper in Cell, a year after retracting a study on a similar subject from the Journal of Biological Chemistry.
Here’s the notice for “SIRT1 Suppresses β-Amyloid Production by Activating the α-Secretase Gene ADAM10,” a 2010 paper by Tufts’ Gizem Donmez, MIT’s Leonard Guarante — of longevity research fame — and colleagues: Continue reading Cell retraction of Alzheimer’s study is second for Tufts neuroscientist
Charles Vacanti, a Harvard anesthesiologist and stem cell pioneer whose name appeared on both retracted STAP stem cell papers, is giving up his post as chair of anesthesiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and taking a year-long sabbatical.
According to the Knoepfler Lab Stem Cell Blog, which as become a must-read for anyone interested in the STAP saga, Vacanti — the corresponding author, with Haruko Obokata, on one of the Nature articles, and a co-author on the other — told colleagues in an email: Continue reading Harvard stem cell scientist Vacanti taking leave in wake of STAP retractions
We’re going to get a little meta here, so be warned.
Take a look at the headline of this post. For those of you unfamiliar with the symbols to the left and right of the words, those are quotation marks. What that means is that we’ve taken those two sentences from another source. And here is that other source, a blog post from Tahseen Consulting titled — yes, you guessed it, “Is Imitation the Sincerest Form of Flattery? Not Without Proper Attribution.”
Apparently, the last group of authors who liked Tahseen’s words enough to use them did so without that whole attribution thing. Here, let us demonstrate attribution again, this time using the WordPress block-quote function. From the post: Continue reading “Is Imitation the Sincerest Form of Flattery? Not Without Proper Attribution.”