The authors of a study estimating how much radioactive material from two sunken Russian submarines is taken up by fish in the Barents Sea have retracted it, citing the need for “significant and extensive” corrections.
Here’s the notice, from Environmental Pollution: Continue reading Radioactive fish study retracted for “significant and extensive” corrections
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies — formerly known as Chiropractic & Osteopathy — has retracted a 2010 paper by a team of Australian researchers who failed to obtain institutional review board (IRB) approval for their studies.
As the notice for “A descriptive study of a manual therapy intervention within a randomised controlled trial for hamstring and lower limb injury prevention” explains: Continue reading Another retraction from chiropractic researchers for lack of ethics approval
Authors of two separate studies in RSC Advances — RSC is the Royal Society of Chemistry — have retracted their papers.
Here’s one notice, for “Laser-induced gold/chitosan nanocomposites with tailored wettability applied to multi-irradiated microfluidic channels:” Continue reading Two Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) Advances retractions, for unreliable results, surprised author
Jesús A. Lemus, the Spanish veterinary researcher whose work has been the subject of a misconduct inquiry, has another retraction for his CV. It’s his third, according to our count.
The newest retraction is from PLoS ONE:
Continue reading Feeling sheepish: Another retraction for Lemus, of study of whether livestock can spread chlamydia to birds
The authors of a chemistry paper are retracting it after a Columbia University chemistry researcher pointed out a fatal misinterpretation of his own work in it.
Here’s the notice in Chemistry — A European Journal: Continue reading Did a McLuhan moment lead to retraction in Chemistry — A European Journal?
We’ve written about mega-corrections that allow scientists to retrace virtually all of their steps yet preserve their publications as supposedly legitimate. And we’ve seen plenty of corrections that allow authors to assert that their conclusions are correct when evidently important pieces of data are themselves unreliable.
Now comes a correction that seems to us to strike the right chords, given the fact that editors are to a large extent at the mercy of authors in these situations. Continue reading Correction for MD Anderson’s Bharat Aggarwal arches eyebrows for the right reasons
With apologies to the Bangles for this post’s title, we have another vulture-related retraction from Jesús A. Lemus, the Spanish veterinary researcher whose results have come into question.
This one involves a paper that appeared in PLoS ONE in 2009, titled “Susceptibility to Infection and Immune Response in Insular and Continental Populations of Egyptian Vulture: Implications for Conservation.”
According to the notice: Continue reading Walk (back) an Egyptian (vulture): Another paper by Spanish vet under scrutiny retracted
Last month, we reported on a PLoS ONE paper about genetically modified cassava — or, more correctly, allegedly GMO cassava — that was being retracted because data “could not be found.” We have an update on that story, namely that a paper relying on materials from that lab will be retracted, and that authors of a review that included a figure from the graduate student who claimed to have done the work will retract part of their paper.
As a Retraction Watch commenter on our earlier post noted, referring to Claude Fauquet, the PI of the Danforth Center lab where graduate student Mohammad Abhary worked: Continue reading The domino effect: More retractions of papers that cited retracted PLoS ONE GMO cassava study
Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands has released the final report on Don Poldermans, finding that the institution’s once-star cardiology researcher committed misconduct.
As Larry Husten of CardioBrief reports, Erasmus MC’s investigation included that Poldermans — perhaps best known for his work on beta-blockers — has admitted to acts of misconduct but not to fraud.
That’s not merely a distinction without a difference. Continue reading Final report on cardiology researcher Poldermans confirms claims of misconduct
Last week was a bit of a whirlwind in Retraction Land, thanks to a big study of retractions in PNAS and a lot of resulting press coverage. So we didn’t have a chance to update readers on an ongoing story and discussion involving the PLoS journals.
As ScienceInsider was first to report last week, the editor of PLoS Pathogens, Kasturi Haldar, has now apologized for retracting a paper allegedly showing a link between the XMRV virus and prostate cancer without having contacted the second of two corresponding authors. Retraction Watch readers may recall that Haldar told us on September 19: Continue reading Catching up: PLoS Pathogens apologizes for retracting XMRV-prostate cancer paper before contacting a corresponding author