A materials scientist in Turkey has retracted a paper in the journal Tetrahedron after realizing that there was more to the compounds he was studying than he thought.
The article, “Novel donor–acceptor type thiophene pyridine conjugates: synthesis and ion recognition features,” appeared in April and was written by Fatih Algi, of the Laboratory of Organic Materials at Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University.
Here’s the notice: Continue reading Author retracts materials paper for irreproducibility
In 2005, Barbara Fredrickson and Marcial Losada published a paper in American Psychologist making a bold and specific claim:
…the authors predict that a ratio of positive to negative affect at or above 2.9 will characterize individuals in flourishing mental health.
The paper made quite a splash. It has been cited 360 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge, and formed the basis of a 2009 book by Fredrickson, Positivity: Top-Notch Research Reveals the 3 to 1 Ratio That Will Change Your Life.
But something didn’t sit right with Nick Brown, a psychology grad student at the University of East London. He found the paper’s claims wanting, and contacted Alan Sokal — yes, that Alan Sokal, who published a fake paper in Social Text in 1996. Sokal agreed, and he, Brown, and Harris Friedman published a critique of the paper in July of this year in American Psychologist. Its abstract: Continue reading Fredrickson-Losada “positivity ratio” paper partially withdrawn
Last December, we brought you the story of a math paper that was retracted because it made “no sense mathematically.” Today, we have that retraction’s cousin: A physics paper retracted because some of the data are “unphysical.”
Here’s the notice for “Room temperature ferromagnetism in pure and Co- and Fe-doped CeO2 dilute magnetic oxide: effect of oxygen vacancies and cation valence,” which was published in April 2011 in the Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics: Continue reading That’ll do it: Physics paper retracted for a “pattern that is unphysical”
In a finding that’s unlikely to surprise too many people, but which is interesting work nonetheless, researchers have found that trainees whom the U.S. Office of Research Integrity finds to have committed misconduct rarely publish much again. According to the paper, only 11% of trainees who committed misconduct published more than one article a year.
That’s not quite the case for more seasoned scientists who show up in ORI reports, as the researchers — Barbara Redman and Jon Merz — had discovered in previous work. Here’s the abstract of the new paper, “Effects of Findings of Scientific Misconduct on Postdoctoral Trainees,” which appeared in August in the American Journal of Bioethics — Primary Research (not the AJOB, as we’d first reported): Continue reading What happens to postdocs sanctioned by the ORI?
Marc Abrahams, of Improbable Research and the Ig Nobels, found something remarkable earlier this evening, as he is wont to do:
That’s right, a paper written by two Penises and a von Boning. But much to Abrahams’ chagrin, he notes: Continue reading The case of the three retracted Penises
Here’s a warning to would-be plagiarizers: Don’t submit to the journal Molecules unless you have no problem being called out by name when you’re busted.
Consider: The journal is retracting a paper it published earlier this year after learning that the article contained verbatim text — and lots of it — from previously published papers.
The article, “Cytotoxicity and Anti-Inflammatory Activity of ethylsulfanyltriazoloquinazolin,” was written by a group that included Amira M. Gamal-Eldeen, of the National Research Center in Cairo, Egypt. Why single out Dr. Gamal-Eldeen, you ask? Read for yourself: Continue reading Your bad: Journal yanks paper for plagiarism and duplication, and points fingers
Another installment of Ask Retraction Watch. A reader asks:
I was curious, what happens to papers after retraction?
In some cases the papers are retracted by authors claiming that they found some error in the data. As I know, that retraction means that paper is retracted from the whole literature. If the original authors want to publish part of the paper or the whole paper itself after removing or correcting the erroneous part, is that OK? Or are they guilty of duplication?
If the authors want to republish the corrected data, should they inform the editors about earlier retraction or not? I believe if they inform the editors, they will spoil any chance of the paper being accepted.
Vote in our poll, and comment below.
Continue reading Ask Retraction Watch: Can data from retracted papers be republished?
The author of a scholarly work on Christian theology — in particular, that dealing with what the Bible has to say about the relationship of Christians with Jews and other non-believers in Christ — has lost the article for violating the Eighth Commandment. (Or Seventh, depending which version of said commandments you read.)
The paper, “Social identity, ethnicity and the gospel of reconciliation,” was written by Jason Goroncy, of the Knox Centre for Ministry and Leadership, in Dunedin, New Zealand, and the Department of Practical Theology at the University of Pretoria, in South Africa. It appeared in the journal Theological Studies (also known as HTS Teologiese Studies).
The abstract states:
Continue reading Thou shalt not plagiarize: Eighth commandment violation results in retraction
Ulrich Lichtenthaler, the management professor at the University of Mannheim who has had a dozen papers retracted, has now lost his license to teach.
The WHU-Otto Beisheim School of Management, where Lichtenthaler earned his PhD, announced the move Friday, saying (courtesy Google Translate): Continue reading Management prof with 12 retractions loses his license to teach
As the bumper sticker says, “Regime change starts at home.” Seems to be the case with scientists these days.
This month we have seen commendable instances of researchers retracting papers after identifying flaws in their own data — an outbreak of integrity that has us here at Retraction Watch applauding. (We’ve even created a new category, “doing the right thing,” at the suggestion of a reader.)
Today’s feel-good story comes from the lab of Karl Svoboda, of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Janelia Farm Research Campus, in Ashburn, Va. Back in June, Svoboda and his colleagues published “Whisker Dynamics Underlying Tactile Exploration,” in the Journal of Neuroscience. Here’s what the abstract had to say about the study:
Continue reading It’s an epidemic! Another group does the right thing, retracting neuroscience paper