A third retraction stemming from Cardiff investigations

cancer research 1113We’ve been reporting on retractions of research published by Cardiff University scientists following an investigation into their work. On Monday, we noted a new retraction of work by the group in Cancer Research, which we thought was the second retraction following one in the Journal of Immunology in 2011. But it turns out there was another retraction published at the same time in the same journal, which we now know about thanks to commenter David Hardman and PubPeer.

Here’s the notice: Continue reading A third retraction stemming from Cardiff investigations

Another image falsification retraction for Emory heart researchers

jbc1112coverA group of authors from Emory University, has lost another paper for image manipulation, bringing their total to at least four. What makes this particularly interesting is that the main actor in the figure fakery, Lian Zuo, does not appear to have been involved this time.

Zuo, you may recall, was cited in multiple retraction notices back in 2011 after Emory investigators concluded that he appeared to have been fabricating figures. But, one of the notices, from Circulation Research, raised the possibility that someone else was implicated, too: Continue reading Another image falsification retraction for Emory heart researchers

“Just significant” results have been around for decades in psychology — but have gotten worse: study

qjepLast year, two psychology researchers set out to figure out whether the statistical results psychologists were reporting in the literature were distributed the way you’d expect. We’ll let the authors, E.J. Masicampo, of Wake Forest, and Daniel Lalande, of the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, explain why they did that:

The psychology literature is meant to comprise scientific observations that further people’s understanding of the human mind and human behaviour. However, due to strong incentives to publish, the main focus of psychological scientists may often shift from practising rigorous and informative science to meeting standards for publication. One such standard is obtaining statistically significant results. In line with null hypothesis significance testing (NHST), for an effect to be considered statistically significant, its corresponding p value must be less than .05.

When Masicampo and Lalande looked at a year’s worth of three highly cited psychology journals — the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General; Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; and Psychological Science — from 2007 to 2008, they found: Continue reading “Just significant” results have been around for decades in psychology — but have gotten worse: study

Former Cardiff researcher found guilty of misconduct “very disappointed,” calls process “unprofessional”

cardiffYesterday, we reported on the second retraction in a case at Cardiff University, which had found misconduct by a former scientist. Cancer Research, which published the retraction, said that scientist, Rossen Donev, could not be reached.

Donev responded to our request for comment this morning: Continue reading Former Cardiff researcher found guilty of misconduct “very disappointed,” calls process “unprofessional”

Third retraction appears for orthopedic surgeon involved in investigation, lawsuits

orthopedic reviewsIn July, we reported on the unfortunate math of Harish Hosalkar, a San Diego orthopedic surgeon who was at the center of an institutional investigation into the integrity of his data, two lawsuits and three retractions.

At the time, we were waiting on the third retraction, in the journal Orthopedic Reviews. It has now arrived.

The article was titled “Open reduction and internal fixation of displaced clavicle fractures in adolescents,” and Hosalkar wrote it with Gaurav Parikh, James D. Bomar and Bernd Bittersohl. Continue reading Third retraction appears for orthopedic surgeon involved in investigation, lawsuits

Second retraction stemming from Cardiff investigations appears

cancer research 1113A second retraction of a paper by a Cardiff University researcher found to have committed misconduct has appeared.

In April, a Cardiff investigation found that Rossen Donev, a former researcher at the university, had manipulated images in four different papers. Donev, who was at the University of Swansea until August, according to his LinkedIn profile, and is now director of Biomed Consult Ltd., had already retracted a Journal of Immunology paper in late 2011 after a different Cardiff investigation.

The investigation cleared co-author and dean Paul Morgan of misconduct. Morgan resigned from Cardiff in August, but “he categorically denied that his decision had anything to do with the misconduct investigation,” according to Times Higher Education.

Here’s the new notice, from Cancer Research: Continue reading Second retraction stemming from Cardiff investigations appears

Correction by punctuation? PNAS fixes paper by putting quotes around plagiarized passages

PNAScover1113PNAS has a curious correction in a recent issue. A group from Toronto and Mount Sinai in New York, it seems, had been rather too liberal in their use of text from a previously published paper by another researcher — what we might call plagiarism, in a less charitable mood.

To paraphrase Beyoncé: If you like it, better put some quotation marks around it. But we’re pretty sure she meant before, not after, the fact.

The article, “Structural basis for substrate specificity and catalysis of human histone acetyltransferase 1,” had appeared in May 2012, in other words, some 17 months ago. It has been cited twice, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

As the notice states: Continue reading Correction by punctuation? PNAS fixes paper by putting quotes around plagiarized passages

Spying on The Onion: Journal retracts drone paper for duplication

euro j agronomyWhen you think of drones, you probably think of deadly strikes in faraway lands. But what about studying crops?

Take “Use of digital photography from unmanned aerial vehicles for estimation of leaf area index in onion (Allium cepa L.),” a study published earlier this year in the European Journal of Agronomy by researchers from Spain: Continue reading Spying on The Onion: Journal retracts drone paper for duplication

Doing the right thing: Scientists reward authors who report their own errors, says study

scientificreportsWe’ve always like to highlight cases in which scientists do the right thing and retract problematic papers themselves, rather than being forced to by editors and publishers. Apparently, according to a new paper by economists and management scholars, scientists reward that sort of behavior, too.

The study by Benjamin Jones of the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University and the National Bureau of Economic Research and colleagues, “The Retraction Penalty: Evidence from the Web of Science,” was published yesterday in Scientific Reports, a Nature Publishing Group title.

The authors lay out what they do: Continue reading Doing the right thing: Scientists reward authors who report their own errors, says study

JACS retracts polymer paper over data concerns

jacsat_v135i044.inddThe Journal of the American Chemical Society has retracted a 2009 paper on ethylene polymerization after the authors said they were unable to replicate their findings.

The article, “Bimetallic Effects for Enhanced Polar Comonomer Enchainment Selectivity in Catalytic Ethylene Polymerization,”came from the lab of Tobin Marks, a highly decorated — and grant-and-royalty-generating — chemist at Northwestern University.
Continue reading JACS retracts polymer paper over data concerns