Should readers get a refund when they pay to access seriously flawed papers?

Photo by Bilal Kamoon via flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilal-kamoon/
Photo by Bilal Kamoon via flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilal-kamoon/

Time for another installment of Ask Retraction Watch:

Let’s say I’m collecting relevant papers to write a review, or preparing a project, and I have rather limited time. I find a few interesting papers, bump into some paywalls, ask the authors for the .pdf without any response, and finally I decide to pay, say, $20 USD each for 8 papers. However, upon reading these papers I notice that two or three of them present serious irregularities — say, they’re 90% similar to some other published papers. Well, I’ve just spent $160 USD on these papers, trusting the publisher in the mumbo jumbo that all papers “meet high quality international standards,” are “peer-reviewed by experts,” “handled by selected editors,” etc., and yet they are clearly deeply flawed. Moreover, I investigate further online and I find that these and other issues in the papers had been already pointed out by readers online, e.g., in PubPeer or Retraction Watch comments, more than a year before.

Should I be entitled to a refund?

Take our poll, and leave a comment: Continue reading Should readers get a refund when they pay to access seriously flawed papers?

Utrecht University finds “violation of academic integrity” by former researcher

dhonukshe
Pankaj Dhonukshe

We have an update on the case of Pankaj Dhonukshe, a scientist about whom we reported in November. Utrecht University has found that Dhonukshe, a former researcher at the Dutch university, committed “a violation of academic integrity” in work that led to a number of papers, including one published in Nature and once since retracted from Cell.

Here’s the university’s statement: Continue reading Utrecht University finds “violation of academic integrity” by former researcher

“Inconsistent errors” and unknowing authors force retraction of microbiology paper

leeuwenhoekA 2013 article in Antonie van Leeuwenhoek Journal of Microbiology has been retracted for a few reasons.

Here’s the notice for “The effects of each beta-glucosidase gene deletion on cellulase gene regulation in Neurospora crassa:” Continue reading “Inconsistent errors” and unknowing authors force retraction of microbiology paper

Leading chemist notches two retractions in one journal, separated by 47 years

inorganica chimica actaA leading chemist at the University of Washington, Larry Dalton, has retracted a 2004 study in Inorganica Chimica Acta, marking his second retraction in the journal in 47 years.

Here’s the new notice: Continue reading Leading chemist notches two retractions in one journal, separated by 47 years

Springer, IEEE withdrawing more than 120 nonsense papers

springerTwo major publishers will remove more than 120 papers created with random paper generator SCIgen, according to Nature.

Richard van Noorden, who has the scoop, reports:ieee Continue reading Springer, IEEE withdrawing more than 120 nonsense papers

Nine-year-old plagiarism allegation leads to retraction of math paper

entropyIt is often said that science is self-correcting, but it is usually more accurate to add “in the long run” to that statement.

Take, for example, this retraction of a 10-year-old paper in Entropy that had been questioned since 2005. Here’s the notice for “Statistical Convergent Topological Sequence Entropy Maps of the Circle:”

The editors were made aware that a paper published in Entropy in 2004 [1] may have plagiarized an earlier paper by Roman Hric published in 2000 [2]. After checking with specialized plagiarism software, we found that this claim is indeed correct and almost the entire paper is a verbatim copy of the earlier one. After confirmation of this fact, the editors of Entropy have decided to retract the paper immediately.

We would like to apologize to the readers of the journal that it took so many years to notice this error and to retract the paper. Apparently there is a comment on MathSciNet (http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/) since 2005 that points out this case of possible plagiarism [3], however the editorial office was not aware of this until recently. We request readers of the journal to directly get in touch with the editorial office and the editors of the journal for similar cases in the future, so that they can be handled promptly.

References

1. Aydin, B. Statistical Convergent Topological Sequence Entropy Maps of the Circle. Entropy 2004, 6, 257–261.
2. Hric, R. Topological sequence entropy for maps of the circle. Comment. Math. Univ. Carolin. 2000, 41, 53–59.
3. MathSciNet, MR2082710 (2005f:37075), http://www.ams.org/mathscinet getitem?mr=2082710

The paper has yet to be cited, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

Hat tip: William T.A. Harrison

Failure to launch: “Inaccuracies,” “incomplete and incorrect references” ground space tourist paper

new spaceAn article in New Space, a journal about space travel, has been retracted because the results it presented weren’t ready for liftoff.

The retraction notice appears as a letter from editor G. Scott Hubbard: Continue reading Failure to launch: “Inaccuracies,” “incomplete and incorrect references” ground space tourist paper

Weekend reads: A psychology researcher’s confession, a state senator’s plagiarism

booksYet another busy week at Retraction Watch, with one of us taking part in a symposium on the future of science journalism for a few days. (See if you can find Ivan in this picture.) Here’s what was happening elsewhere on the web in science publishing and related issues: Continue reading Weekend reads: A psychology researcher’s confession, a state senator’s plagiarism

Pharmaceutical journal retracts antibiotics paper with dodgy data, with an unclear notice

aapsAAPS PharmSciTech, a journal of the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists, has retracted a 2013 paper by a group from India. The reason appears to be manipulated data, although the wording of the notice leaves that open to interpretation.

The article, “Design and Formulation Technique of a Novel Drug Delivery System for Azithromycin and Its Anti-Bacterial Activity Against Staphylococcus aureus,” was written by a trio of researchers at the Center for Nanobiotechnology at VIT University in Vellore.

The article, published online in June, purported to find that: Continue reading Pharmaceutical journal retracts antibiotics paper with dodgy data, with an unclear notice

Figure duplication kills cell death paper

cdd_cimageA pair of researchers at the University of Maryland have retracted a paper in Cell Death & Differentiation after it became clear that one of the figures had been duplicated from an earlier paper.

Here’s the notice, dated December 13, 2013, for “INrf2 (Keap1) targets Bcl-2 degradation and controls cellular apoptosis,” by Suryakant Niture and Anil Jaiswal: Continue reading Figure duplication kills cell death paper