Another withdrawal by MD Anderson’s Aggarwal, again for unclear reasons

Bharat B. Aggarwal, the MD Anderson researcher under investigation at his institution over concerns of image manipulation, has withdrawn a second paper, although you’d never know why from the statement.

The notice for the article, “Evidence for the critical roles of NF-κB p65 and specificity proteins in the apoptosis-inducing activity of proteasome inhibitors in leukemia cells,” is pretty minimal: Continue reading Another withdrawal by MD Anderson’s Aggarwal, again for unclear reasons

Author who took responsibility for errors in retracted PNAS paper cites it…in error

via Wikimedia

One of the issues we’ve touched on at Retraction Watch is what happens once papers are retracted. A few studies have found that other authors continue to cite those studies anyway, without noting their withdrawal from the literature. A more recent paper found that retractions are linked to a dramatic decline in citations (see last half of post). And we’ve reported on one case in which the authors of a retracted study decided not to cite it at all when they republished their findings elsewhere.

But it seems unusual for an author to cite his or her own retracted work without noting it had been retracted. That’s what happened in a recently published PLoS ONE paper, “Loss of Secreted Frizzled-Related Protein 4 Correlates with an Aggressive Phenotype and Predicts Poor Outcome in Ovarian Cancer Patients.” The second to last paragraph of that paper ends: Continue reading Author who took responsibility for errors in retracted PNAS paper cites it…in error

On second thought: Transplant paper retracted for researcher error

When a group from Saint Louis University published a case report in Pediatric Transplantation on a baby with an unusual infection after kidney transplant surgery, they thought they’d stumbled on a first. At the time they wrote:

[Acalculous candidal cholecystitis] caused by Candida is an uncommon entity usually seen in the critically ill. Here, we present the case of an 18-month-old renal transplant patient who developed candidal AAC during the post-operative period. Previous articles have addressed acalculous cholecystitis secondary to a variety of causes, or addressed a wide variety of Candida infections in the biliary tract, but this is the first discussion of cholecystitis caused by Candida without confounding factors such as biliary calculi or multiple pathogens. After the discussion of our patient’s case, we also reviewed the English-language literature regarding candidal AAC and discussed diagnosis, treatment, and mortality.

A year later, however, the group is walking back their article. A retraction notice in the journal states that: Continue reading On second thought: Transplant paper retracted for researcher error

Two more retractions in respiratory journal as University of Louisville completes investigation

Last July, we reported on four retractions by a group of researchers at the University of Louisville, and we noted that the scientists’ work was under investigation. That investigation has apparently concluded, according to a retraction notice in the American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology for two of their papers: Continue reading Two more retractions in respiratory journal as University of Louisville completes investigation

Updated: Slate retracts story on Glenn McGee and Celltex following lawsuit threats, as McGee resigns from company

Slate has retracted a story about controversial bioethicist Glenn McGee and his involvement with Celltex Therapeutics, a Texas-based company that says it extracts and banks stem cells from people’s fat. Where the story by University of Minnesota bioethicist Carl Elliott once appeared now sits this editor’s note: Continue reading Updated: Slate retracts story on Glenn McGee and Celltex following lawsuit threats, as McGee resigns from company

Gastro journal retracts duplicate review, but what really happened?

Current Opinion in Gastroenterology is a bimonthly journal “offering a unique and wide ranging perspective on the key developments in the field” that “features hand-picked review articles from our team of expert editors.”

Apparently, those hands picked what amounted to the same “unique” article twice. The journal is retracting a 2004 paper, “Enteral feeding,” by Khursheed Jeejeebhoy, an expert in nutrition at the University of Toronto (he’s now emeritus), because it duplicates a 2003 paper with the same title.

Here’s what the notice, which, lamentably, sits behind a paywall, has to say: Continue reading Gastro journal retracts duplicate review, but what really happened?

Journal retracts paper “whose topic bears no relationship whatsoever” to publication’s subject matter

The journal Molecules has retracted a paper — “A comparative study of nozzle/diffuser micropumps with novel valves” — that they apparently never should have published in the first place. From the notice, to which the original paper has yet to link: Continue reading Journal retracts paper “whose topic bears no relationship whatsoever” to publication’s subject matter

JAMA awaiting final OHRP decision on Harvard-led paper whose authors didn’t fully disclose risks to elderly

Earlier this month, the U.S. Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) told a group of researchers led by a Harvard Medical School professor that they hadn’t been forthcoming enough about the risks elderly subjects faced in their trial.

As the Boston Globe reported: Continue reading JAMA awaiting final OHRP decision on Harvard-led paper whose authors didn’t fully disclose risks to elderly

The first-ever English language retraction (1756)?

Benjamin Wilson self-portrait, via Wikimedia http://bit.ly/zkWs5C

We tend to focus on new retractions here at Retraction Watch, and find it difficult enough to even keep up with the hundreds per year. But sometimes it’s illuminating to take a dip into history, so when Richard van Noorden alerted us to what may be the earliest-ever English language retraction, we thought we’d take a look.

The notice appeared in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society on June 24, 1756. It reads: Continue reading The first-ever English language retraction (1756)?

ORI: Former SUNY Upstate neuroscience dept. chair Miller manipulated data in four grant applications

Last month, we reported on two retractions by the former neuroscience and physiology department chair at the State University of New York (SUNY) Upstate Medical University in Syracuse. Both of the retractions were requested by the university after an investigation found that Michael W. Miller had committed misconduct.

Now, the Office of Research Integrity (ORI), which reviews misconduct investigations by NIH grantee institutions, has weighed in. As detailed in the Federal Register, ORI found that Miller falsified or fabricated data in four NIH grant applications, the two published (and now retracted) papers, and one manuscript submitted to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). For example, he Continue reading ORI: Former SUNY Upstate neuroscience dept. chair Miller manipulated data in four grant applications