The journal Digestion has a retraction notice that’s, well, an amusing morsel.
At issue was a 2011 paper on a biomarker for liver cancer by a group of Turkish authors who plagiarized from the work of others.
Here’s the notice for the article, titled “Diagnostic and Prognostic Validity of Golgi Protein 73 in Hepatocellular Carcinoma“: Continue reading Plagiarism leads to retraction of liver cancer paper
Note to authors: If a journal asks you to suggest reviewers for your submitted manuscript, don’t thank them by faking the reviewer’s emails.
You might just get caught.
That’s what happened recently at Experimental Parasitology, according to the retraction notice for “Entamoeba histolytica: Cloning, expression and evaluation of the efficacy of a recombinant amebiasis cysteine proteinase gene (ACP1) antigen in minipig:” Continue reading Elsevier parasitology journal retracts paper after finding author made up peer reviewer email addresses
Duplication — sometimes referred to “self-plagiarism,” with a lack of precision — is a frequent cause of retractions. Usually, it’s of text that authors have used elsewhere. But what about data? In our new LabTimes column, we describe a hypothetical situation: Continue reading When is it acceptable to use some of the same data in separate papers?
This one’s like taking candy from a baby.
The Journal of Endodontics — or JOE — has retracted a 2011 article (its online date) on the prospects of tissue engineering for the mouth by a group of Chinese authors who appear to have tried to pass bogus data into print.
The paper was titled “Mineralized Tissue Formation by Bone Morphogenetic Protein-7–transfected Pulp Stem Cells“. According to the notice: Continue reading Pulp fiction: doubtful “veracity” leads to retraction of endodontics paper
The Journal of Biological Chemistry has posted another of its inscrutable and opaque retraction notices, this one for a study first published in September 2011. The retraction reads in full: Continue reading Another opaque notice from the JBC, for paper author says is correct and valid
The science world has been abuzz with news that a 2010 Science paper on an arsenic-based strain of bacteria had been refuted by two new studies published Sunday night. Yesterday on Retraction Watch, David Sanders argued the paper should still be retracted. So we were curious whether the editors of the journal had ever asked Felisa Wolfe-Simon and her colleagues to retract the paper. Science tells Retraction Watch: Continue reading Science has “not asked for a correction or retraction” of arsenic life paper, and why situation is unlike XMRV-CFS
In a case of refreshing transparency, a journal has published a detailed list of corrections it requested from authors of a paper on the costs of climate change, even though the authors declined to make most of them.
Earlier this year, the journal Ecological Economics published a paper that cast some doubt on the FUND model, which, as the article explains:
The FUND model of climate economics, developed by Richard Tol and David Anthoff, is widely used, both in research and in the development of policy proposals. It was one of three models used by the U.S. government’s Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon in 2009 (Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, 2010). The Working Group’s “central estimate” 1 of the social cost of carbon (SCC), i.e. the monetary value of the incremental damages from greenhouse gas emissions, was $21 per ton of CO2.
The paper concluded: Continue reading Noteworthy: Journal posts all the corrections it wanted in a climate change paper after authors refuse most
Yesterday, Science published two papers which undercut an earlier paper in the journal claiming to show evidence for an arsenic-based strain of bacteria. Guest poster David Sanders, a structural biologist at Purdue University who was involved in a Retraction Watch story in May, argues that the journal could have avoided publishing the rebuttals—a swift retraction of the original was (and still is) the better move.
Allow me to apologize from the start. This narrative is not a typical Retraction Watch post, because it contains a number of personal elements. However, it would be hard to separate my perspective from my experience.
I will begin by asserting that, despite Rosie Redfield’s many valuable contributions to refuting the Wolfe-Simon paper that have culminated with the publication of data she and other investigators have obtained, there was no need for Science to publish additional articles. The Wolfe-Simon paper never should have been published. The only responsible action on the part of Science would be to retract the original article. Continue reading Despite refutation, Science arsenic life paper deserves retraction, scientist argues
The Journal of Psychiatric Research is retracting a 2010 paper claiming to show a relationship between quetiapine (Seroquel) and certain lab tests and brain scans, after it turns out the brain images were either unreliable or invalid.
Here’s the notice for “Relationship between dopamine D2 receptor occupancy, clinical response, and drug and monoamine metabolites levels in plasma and cerebrospinal fluid. A pilot study in patients suffering from first-episode schizophrenia treated with quetiapine”: Continue reading Journal retracts antipsychotic study when all subjects’ PET scans turn out to be unreliable or invalid
The journal Immunopharmacology and Immunotoxicology has retracted a 2011 paper by an Italian nursing researcher who lifted text and data from a previously published work, and made up results to fill gaps, too.
Here’s the notice: Continue reading Second helpings: Immunology journal retracts paper for plagiarism, then U Bari investigation reveals fraud