An investigation at the University of New South Wales in Australia has determined that a long-accused cancer researcher did not commit misconduct. The investigation did find instances when Levon Khachigian breached the code of conduct, but
This week at Retraction Watch featured a look at the huge problem of misidentified cell lines, a check-in with a company that retracted a paper as it was about to go public, and Diederik Stapel’s 58th retraction. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Authors have retracted a large meta-analysis claiming that rising levels of carbon dioxide don’t always reduce nutrients in plants. After commenters on PubPeer raised concerns, the authors say they found several unintentional errors in their data that could “significantly change conclusions” of the paper in Plant Ecology, according to the retraction note. The paper found that the impact … Continue reading Paper claiming extra CO2 doesn’t always lower plant nutrients pulled for errors
Olivier Voinnet, a well-known plant scientist at the ETH in Zurich, has notched his 7th retraction for a highly cited paper. The 2003 paper was pulled when “additional image manipulations” came to light after The Plant Journal issued a correction earlier this year. The retraction follows an investigation into — and then retraction of — several other papers co-authored by Voinnet. The … Continue reading Voinnet retracts highly cited paper, bringing his total to 7
The authors of a paper on supportive supervisors just want readers to “better understand the reported findings,” and so have issued multiple “clarifications” in a corrigendum note. Some of the issues addressed in the note have been raised on PubPeer. The paper’s author list includes one Fred Walumbwa, formerly an Arizona State University management researcher, some … Continue reading Management researcher with 7 retractions issues “clarifications” to 2013 paper
Nearly three years ago, our co-founders Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus penned a column in Lab Times suggesting ways for readers to report alleged scientific misconduct. They are now retracting that advice. In the retracted column, they suggested initially contacting the editor of the journal that published the potentially problematic work, and if the editor suggests … Continue reading A Retraction Watch retraction: Our 2013 advice on reporting misconduct turns out to have been wrong
Science is fixing images in a paper published online in April that discovered an immune-boosting protein, after the authors mistakenly mixed up similar-looking Western blots. The paper, which received some press coverage, identified a protein that helped the immune system fight off cancers and infections. Philip Ashton-Rickardt, a scientist at Imperial College London who led the study, … Continue reading “Carelessness” forces Science to correct paper about immune booster
A study on the cellular interactions underlying prostate cancer has been retracted after a whistleblower pointed out duplicated images in one of the paper’s figures that were “erroneously presented as unique.” The International Journal of Cancer posted the notice in June. The authors backed the paper’s conclusions but agreed, “the most responsible course of action is to retract.” … Continue reading “Most responsible course of action is to retract:” Duplicated images fell prostate cancer paper
An investigation at St. Jude Children’s Hospital into “irregularities” in a figure featured in a neuroblastoma paper has concluded that the image was fabricated. The paper, published in Surgery in 2012, was retracted on Friday. Here’s the full retraction notice for “Liposome-encapsulated curcumin suppresses neuroblastoma growth through nuclear factor-kappa B inhibition:”
Two sets of authors have withdrawn their papers from the Journal of Biological Chemistry. We’re telling you about the both together because, true to JBC form, there’s not too much to say. The retraction notices for both papers — about the molecular underpinnings of cardiac fibroblasts and melanoma cells — are identical: