Retraction Watch

Does publicly questioning papers lead to more corrections and retractions?

As Retraction Watch readers will likely recall, Paul Brookes ran Science-Fraud.org anonymously until early 2013, when he was outed and faced legal threats that forced him to shut down the site. There are a lot of lessons to be drawn from the experience, some of which Brookes discussed with Science last month.

Today, PeerJ published Brookes’ analysis of the response to critiques on Science-Fraud.org. It’s a compelling examination that suggests public scrutiny of the kind found on the site — often harsh, but always based solidly on evidence — is linked to more corrections and retractions in the literature.

Brookes looked at

497 papers for which data integrity had been questioned either in public or in private. As such, the papers were divided into two sub-sets: a public set of 274 papers discussed online, and the remainder a private set of 223 papers not publicized.

His results?

Continue reading Does publicly questioning papers lead to more corrections and retractions?

Late resveratrol researcher Dipak Das manages to revise and publish paper from the grave

Follow this timeline, if you would:

August 14, 2013: Former UConn researcher Dipak Das, who was found to have committed misconduct, submits a paper to Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity.
September 19, 2013: Das dies.
October 17, 2013: Das submits revisions to his paper in Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity.
October 18, 2013: Paper accepted.
January 12, 2014: Paper published.

That would appear to be what the timeline on the paper — which lists Das as corresponding author, along with a Gmail address — says:

Continue reading Late resveratrol researcher Dipak Das manages to revise and publish paper from the grave

First retraction appears for Dutch anthropologist Mart Bax

Last September we wrote about the case of Mart Bax, an anthropologist once of the Free University in Amsterdam who allegedly fabricated elements in some of his papers, and claimed to have written more than 60 that do not exist:

Bax, who studied an Irish town he called Patricksville, a Dutch pilgrimage site he called Neerdonk, and Medjugorje, a Bosnian pilgrimage site, retired from the Free University in 2002. The university began investigating Bax’s work last year after science journalist Frank van Kolfschooten published Ontspoorde Wetenschap (“Derailed science”). In that book, van Kolfschooten raised questions about Bax’s work into an alleged massacre at Medjugorje during the Bosnian War. Bax responded to those questions in April of this year.

Here’s the university’s 67-page report, in Dutch. The university will not take legal action against Bax. It is unclear from the translations we’ve seen whether any of the papers will be retracted, but we’ll update with anything we learn.

Well, at least part of that ambiguity has cleared, with the retraction of a 2000 paper by Bax in Ethnic and Racial Studies. The article was titled “Warlords, priests and the politics of ethnic cleansing: a case-study from rural Bosnia Hercegovina” and has been cited 20 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge. Here’s its abstract: Continue reading First retraction appears for Dutch anthropologist Mart Bax

Novartis Diovan scandal claims two more papers

A complicated story involving Novartis’s valsartan (Diovan) has led to the retraction of two more papers, one cascading from the other.

Last September, The Lancet retracted the Jikei Heart Study after a slew of retractions of related work prompted an investigation of valsartan research. That investigation found evidence of data manipulation and the failure of one researcher to note his Novartis affiliation. The company has apologized.

Here’s one retraction, from Diabetes Care, for “The Shiga Microalbuminuria Reduction Trial (SMART) Group. Reduction of Microalbuminuria in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: The Shiga Microalbuminuria Reduction Trial (SMART):”

Continue reading Novartis Diovan scandal claims two more papers

Scientists, do you feel bullied by critics? These chemists do

feldheim — Daniel Feldheim, via UC-Boulder

A new site, Stand Up 2 Science Bullies, launched last week:

www.standup2sciencebullies.com is a forum for scientists to share their experience and provide advice pertaining to scientific bullying. We welcome questions and comments from all scientists including students, faculty, and members of industry. We sincerely hope that this forum will serve as an informative resource for scientists who feel that they are being treated unfairly by other scientists.

Continue reading Scientists, do you feel bullied by critics? These chemists do

RIKEN finds two “instances of research misconduct” in STAP stem cell work

Japan’s RIKEN research center has found misconduct in work that led to two controversial Nature papers, purporting to show an easy way to create stem cells, that have been dogged by criticism for months.

Here’s an excerpt from today’s statement about “six items [RIKEN] has been investigating:”

Continue reading RIKEN finds two “instances of research misconduct” in STAP stem cell work

Duplication in physics journal questions key tenet of quantum mechanics

Here’s a physics question: How is it possible to be in two places at the same time?

Answer: Submit the same manuscript twice and hope the editors forget to feed Schrödinger’s cat.

The journal Condensed Matter Physics is retracting a 2013 paper by a Ukrainian scientist who’d published essentially the same paper seven years earlier.The article was titled “On the origin of power-law distributions in systems with constrained phase space,” and was written by an E.V. Vakarin, of ~~the Institute for Condensed Matter Physics, in Lviv~~ UMR 7575 LECA ENSCP-UPMC-CNRS.

According to the abstract: Continue reading Duplication in physics journal questions key tenet of quantum mechanics

Regenerative medicine, regenerative publishing

Developmental Biology has retracted a 2009 paper by an group of regenerative medicine specialists who, it seems, were regenerating more than just cells.

The article, titled “The human placenta is a hematopoietic organ during the embryonic and fetal periods of development,” was led by Susan Fisher, of the Institute for Regenerative Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. It has been cited 32 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

According to the abstract: Continue reading Regenerative medicine, regenerative publishing

Some authors seem to cite their own retracted studies. Should we be concerned?

Some authors of retracted studies persist in citing their retracted work, according to a new study in Science and Engineering Ethics that calls the trend “very concerning.”