Half of researchers have reported trouble reproducing published findings: MD Anderson survey

plosoneReaders of this blog — and anyone who has been following the Anil Potti saga — know that MD Anderson Cancer Center was the source of initial concerns about the reproducibility of the studies Potti, and his supervisor, Joseph Nevins, were publishing in high profile journals. So the Houston institution has a rep for dealing in issues of data quality. (We can say that with a straight face even though one MD Anderson researcher, Bharat Aggarwal, has threatened to sue us for reporting on an institutional investigation into his work, and several corrections, withdrawals, and Expressions of Concern.)

We think, therefore, that it’s worth paying attention to a new study in PLOS ONE, “A Survey on Data Reproducibility in Cancer Research Provides Insights into Our Limited Ability to Translate Findings from the Laboratory to the Clinic,” by a group of MD Anderson researchers. They found that about half of scientists at the prominent cancer hospital report being unable to reproduce data in at least one previously published study. The number approaches 60% for faculty members: Continue reading Half of researchers have reported trouble reproducing published findings: MD Anderson survey

BioMed Central retracts study it published twice while acquiring journal

jdmdYesterday, we wrote about the retraction of a paper that ended up published despite the fact that peer reviewers had recommended rejecting it. Today, we have the (short) tale of a paper retracted because the publisher posted it a second time while they were buying acquiring the journal where it appeared.

Here’s the notice for “The association between depression, socio-economic factors and dietary intake in mothers having primary school children living in Rey, South of Tehran, Iran,” published in the Journal of Diabetes & Metabolic Diseases: Continue reading BioMed Central retracts study it published twice while acquiring journal

Lack of conflict of interest disclosure undoes scoliosis study

scoliosisThe journal Scoliosis has retracted a 2012 paper by a pair of German spine doctors over what the editors have called a less-than-fully declared conflict of interest involving one of the authors.

That should be relatively straigtforward – but it’s not quite. Turns out the article does include a disclosure, although perhaps the information it contains was incomplete.

The article, “Soft braces in the treatment of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (AIS) – Review of the literature and description of a new approach,” was written by Hans-Rudolf Weiss and Mario Werkmenn. Weiss, it seems, has something of a pedigree in the field. According to this website, he practices the “Schroth method” of recurvature, a technique pioneered by his grandmother, Katharina Schroth. From the site: Continue reading Lack of conflict of interest disclosure undoes scoliosis study

Nanotech researcher SK Sahoo notches fifth retraction

acta biomaterialiaNanotech researcher SK Sahoo, whom as we reported in February lost four papers from Acta Biomaterialia for what the journal called “highly unethical practices,” has actually retracted five papers from that journal.

According to a notice for “Enhanced cellular uptake and in vivo pharmacokinetics of rapamycin loaded cubic phase nanoparticles for cancer therapy” that appears in the June issue along with the other four: Continue reading Nanotech researcher SK Sahoo notches fifth retraction

Editor inadvertently spurns reviewers; retraction ensues

jvmacoverThe Journal of Multivariate Analysis has retracted a paper it was never meant to publish — a problem, it seems, of multivariate analyses.

The article, titled “Regression estimation with locally stationary long-memory errors,” came from a pair of statisticians in Chile, Wildredo Palma and Guillermo Ferreira.

It appears that the article did not pass muster with the reviewers, but that the editor somehow missed the message. As the retraction notice explains: Continue reading Editor inadvertently spurns reviewers; retraction ensues

“Bird vocalizations” and other best-ever plagiarism excuses: A wrap-up of the 3rd World Conference on Research Integrity

What are the best excuses you’ve seen for plagiarism? James Kroll, at the National Science Foundation’s Office of Inspector General, has collected a bunch over the years (click on the image to enlarge): Continue reading “Bird vocalizations” and other best-ever plagiarism excuses: A wrap-up of the 3rd World Conference on Research Integrity

Mislabeled sample leads to a chain reaction of physics retractions

physrevbTwo different teams of physicists have retracted papers from Physical Review B after realizing that a sample used in the paper published first — and which formed the basis of the second paper — was mislabeled.

Here’s the notice for the first paper, “s-wave superconductivity in barium-doped phenanthrene as revealed by specific-heat measurements,” by Jianjun Ying of the University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, and colleagues: Continue reading Mislabeled sample leads to a chain reaction of physics retractions

Journal expresses concern over flawed multiple sclerosis treatment guideline

neurology may13coverThe journal Neurology has issued an Expression of Concern over recommendations it published earlier this year regarding the treatment of multiple sclerosis.

The journal’s website received multiple comments from clinicians expressing their own concern about the flawed recommendation, which was published as part of a paper titled “The American Academy of Neurology’s Top Five Choosing Wisely recommendations.” The problematic item was number 4: Continue reading Journal expresses concern over flawed multiple sclerosis treatment guideline

Cossu-UCL follow-up: PLOS ONE paper to be corrected

Cossu
Cossu

We have a follow-up from last week’s story about a University College London (UCL) investigation into the work of Giulio Cossu that found errors but no “deliberate intention to mislead.”UCL said it will not make the full report available: Continue reading Cossu-UCL follow-up: PLOS ONE paper to be corrected

Referencing failure (we mean, plagiarism) leads to retraction of water testing paper

evirmonassFrom the Not Saying What You Mean Files: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment has retracted a recent article by authors in Kuwait who appear to have plagiarized, although you couldn’t really tell from the notice.

The paper, “Detection of bacterial endotoxin in drinking tap and bottled water in Kuwait,” appeared in the December 2012 issue of the journal, which is a Springer title. Continue reading Referencing failure (we mean, plagiarism) leads to retraction of water testing paper