A University of Lisbon investigation has prompted two retractions in the Journal of Neuroscience.
The papers share a few authors, including senior author Ana M. Sebastião. Here’s the notice for the first paper: Continue reading University of Lisbon finds “substantial data misrepresentation;” two Journal of Neuroscience papers retracted
Royal jelly — “the goo that sustains honeybees destined for royalty” and is touted dubiously for everything “from youthful skin to virility,” as Nature put it — is apparently a hot research topic. So when a Retraction Watch tipster sent us a corrigendum that seemed to have done something we hadn’t seen before — retract a single figure, without saying why — we figured we’d check it out.
Here’s the text of the corrigendum: Continue reading Royal jelly figure flushed: Author removes figure from 2002 paper
An anti-terrorism researcher at the University of Southern Denmark has had a number of papers in conference proceedings retracted for plagiarism.
Debora Weber-Wulff, who has researched plagiarism for a decade, reports on her blog Copy, Shake, and Paste that eight papers by Nasrullah Memon have been retracted after the Vroniplag website revealed similarities between his work and that of other authors.
According to a university website, Memon is Continue reading Eight papers by anti-terrorism professor retracted for plagiarism
Keeping up with the various investigations into the activities of Yoshitaka Fujii — the assumed record holder for retractions by a single author, with 172 likely — can be a challenge. Between the journals pulling his papers and the institutions looking into his misconduct, it’s hard to keep everything straight.
But we have a new report, from a past employer, that makes for interesting reading and helps tie up some loose ends. The document is from Tsukuba University, where Fujii worked more than a decade ago when questions about the propriety of his findings first surfaced. Continue reading Retraction record broken, again: University report should up Fujii total to 183
Two more retractions for Diederik Stapel, his 33rd and 34th, by our count.
The Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, which has been a frequent subject of Retraction Watch posts recently, has retracted “Similarities and differences between the impact of traits and expectancies: What matters is whether the target stimulus is ambiguous or mixed:” Continue reading Diederik Stapel earns 33rd and 34th retractions
Here’s a thought: If you’re going to write about the “challenges of information and communication technology,” it’s probably best not to use the Internet to plagiarize.
We’re guessing a group of researchers from Serbia is kicking themselves over missing that memo.
The researchers, from Singidunum University in Belgrade, published a 2012 paper in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews titled “Challenges of information and communication technology in energy efficient smart homes.” The work was supported by a grant from the Serbian government.
But according to a new retraction notice: Continue reading Not-smart moves in “smart homes” paper prompt retraction
One of the world’s leading cancer researchers, MIT’s Robert Weinberg, has retracted a decade-old paper after finding out it contained errors.
Here’s the notice for “Ras Modulates Myc Activity to Repress Thrombospondin-1 Expression and Increase Tumor Angiogenesis,” a paper originally published in Cancer Cell in 2003: Continue reading Leading cancer researcher retracts 2003 paper for “inappropriate presentation”
The next time a business professor in Thailand is looking for an ethics case study, he might look no further than the mirror.
Mohammad Asif Salam earned himself a five-year ban on publishing in a Springer journal after publishing work there that he’d already published elsewhere. Here’s the notice for “Corporate social responsibility in purchasing and supply chain,” a paper which appeared in the Journal of Business Ethics in 2009: Continue reading Do as I say, not as I do? Duplication in ethics journal earns author five-year publishing ban
A group of researchers from Mexico has been forced to retract their July 2012 paper in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology *Biology*Physics after a reader noticed cracks in the data that proved to be signs of fatal instability.
Here’s the retraction notice for the article, titled, “Randomized Clinical Trial to Assess the Efficacy of Radiotherapy in Primary Mediastinal Large B-Lymphoma”: Continue reading “Extensive” errors force retraction of lymphoma radiation paper
Because of a number of heated exchanges in the comments over the past few weeks here at Retraction Watch — mostly in response to our coverage of the shutdown of the Science Fraud site — we’ve added this to our FAQ:
We are huge fans of Retraction Watch commenters. They broaden our posts, send us tips, and correct us when we get things wrong. Without them, the site would be a shadow of itself. However, we have recently found ourselves — this update is from January 2013 — having to edit ad hominem attacks out of comments, unapprove other comments, and contact some commenters to remind them of what’s appropriate.
It may not be clear to those who feel the need to resort to such personal attacks Continue reading A word about the Retraction Watch comments policy