Why aren’t there more retractions in business and economics journals?

jaebrA new paper has catalogued retractions over the past few decades in business and economics journals — and hasn’t found very many.

In “Retraction, Dishonesty and Plagiarism: Analysis of a Crucial Issue for Academic Publishing, and the Inadequate Responses from Leading Journals in Economics and Management Disciplines,” which just went online in the Journal of Applied Economics and Business Research (JAEBR), Solmaz Filiz Karabag and Christian Berggren identified 31 retractions in business journals dating back to 2005, and just six in economics journals, dating back to 2009.

The numbers in business journals are even lower when you consider that Continue reading Why aren’t there more retractions in business and economics journals?

Elsevier editorial system hacked, reviews faked, 11 retractions follow

elsevierFor several months now, we’ve been reporting on variations on a theme: Authors submitting fake email addresses for potential peer reviewers, to ensure positive reviews. In August, for example, we broke the story of a Hyung-In Moon, who has now retracted 24 papers published by Informa because he managed to do his own peer review.

Now, Retraction Watch has learned that the Elsevier Editorial System (EES) was hacked sometime last month, leading to faked peer reviews and retractions — although the submitting authors don’t seem to have been at fault. As of now, eleven papers by authors in China, India, Iran, and Turkey have been retracted from three journals.

Here’s one of two identical notices that have just run in Optics & Laser Technology, for two unconnected papers: Continue reading Elsevier editorial system hacked, reviews faked, 11 retractions follow

Failure at System — systems failure? — leads to duplicate publication, retraction

systemcoverThe journal System evidently needs a new one — at least when it comes to production.

The publication has been forced to retract an article that it published twice — in the same issue.

Here’s what happened: Continue reading Failure at System — systems failure? — leads to duplicate publication, retraction

Two patch-clamping retractions in PNAS and the JCI after first author admits image manipulation

jci1212A group of cardiology researchers formerly of the University of Cologne has retracted two papers, after investigations into allegations of misconduct led to an admission of guilt by one of the lab’s junior members.

Here’s the first retraction, for “Connexin 43 acts as a cytoprotective mediator of signal transduction by stimulating mitochondrial KATP channels in mouse cardiomyocytes,” published last week in the Journal of Clinical Investigation: Continue reading Two patch-clamping retractions in PNAS and the JCI after first author admits image manipulation

Serial plagiarists earn lifetime publishing ban from Saudi journal

saudimedicineIn April, we wrote about a group of cancer researchers from Tunisia:

The M.O. of the group…appears to be quite simple: Find a study that looks easy to “replicate,” change a few of the particulars and submit as if it were a piece of local, original work.

One of the papers we cited in that post for appearing to be heavily plagiarized has now been retracted, with a heavy penalty for the authors. Here’s the notice, from the Annals of Saudi Medicine:  Continue reading Serial plagiarists earn lifetime publishing ban from Saudi journal

“Serious errors” in figures prompt concerning Neuroscience retraction

neuroscience1212 coverNeuroscience has retracted a 2009 paper by a team of Korean sports researchers for what appear to be figure irregularities. But the journal’s handling of the case is puzzling and unhelpful.

The article, “Treadmill exercise improves cognitive function and facilitates nerve growth factor signaling by activating mitogen-activated protein kinase/extracellular signal-regulated kinase1/2 in the streptozotocin-induced diabetic rat hippocampus,” came out of Korea National Sport University, among others. It seemed to suggest that exercise could make diabetic rats smarter.

According to the retraction notice: Continue reading “Serious errors” in figures prompt concerning Neuroscience retraction

Irritation turns to aggravation in Neuroscience correction

neuroscience1212 coverNeuroscience has an amusing correction in one of its December issues, involving a paper that appeared in its November 2011 issue on Parkinson’s disease by a group from Germany.

As the notice explains: Continue reading Irritation turns to aggravation in Neuroscience correction

Environmental engineer loses paper after co-authors say he didn’t have permission to publish it

j chem tech biotechAn environmental engineer at Israel’s Ben-Gurion University has been forced to retract a paper amid an ethics committee investigation into whether he had the right to publish it.

The Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology retracted a study from the Vitaly Gitis lab just months after its publication: Continue reading Environmental engineer loses paper after co-authors say he didn’t have permission to publish it

Math paper retracted because some of it makes “no sense mathematically”

appmathlett

What do you do when a math paper that contains some “constructions and arguments [that] make no sense mathematically” gets published?

If you’re Applied Mathematics Letters, you retract the paper, “For the origin of new geometry.” Here’s the notice: Continue reading Math paper retracted because some of it makes “no sense mathematically”

“Additionally, the authors were unable to identify” co-author: Another retraction for Lemus

env microWe’ve been following the case of Jesús A. Lemus, the Spanish veterinary researcher with five retractions and two expressions of concern under his belt so far for suspected data fabrication and including a fake author on his papers.

Yes, a fake author. When this story first broke, El Pais called Javier Grande a ” ghost with a good academic background with at least six scientific publications in international journals.”

Grande’s — and Lemus’s — publication count declined by one more yesterday, as Environmental Microbiology retracted a 2007 paper: Continue reading “Additionally, the authors were unable to identify” co-author: Another retraction for Lemus