A retraction as a group’s papers on smoking and weight loss are too close for comfort

The American Journal of Physiology Endocrinology and Metabolism is retracting a 2009 article by Japanese researchers who appeared to be so fond of their data they published them thrice.

The paper, “Dual suppression of adipogenesis by cigarette smoke through activation of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor and induction of endoplasmic reticulum stress,” by Masanori Kitamura and colleagues, looked at the biochemical mechanism by which cigarette smokers seem to be able to keep weight off. It has been cited eight times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

But according to the retraction notice: Continue reading A retraction as a group’s papers on smoking and weight loss are too close for comfort

Cancer journal retracts herbal medicine paper, citing misconduct probe

The journal Cancer Prevention Research has retracted a 2009 article by a group of scientists from the University of Kentucky after the institution determined that one of the figures in the article wasn’t kosher.

The article, “Psoralidin, an Herbal Molecule, Inhibits Phosphatidylinositol 3-Kinase–Mediated Akt Signaling in Androgen-Independent Prostate Cancer Cells,” has been cited 9 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge. Earlier iterations of the research were presented at two cancer meetings in 2008.

Continue reading Cancer journal retracts herbal medicine paper, citing misconduct probe

Retracted retraction leaves Genomics paper intact — but authors wonder if anyone will know

Last March, the journal Genomics retracted a paper, “Discovery of transcriptional regulators and signaling pathways in the developing pituitary gland by bioinformatic and genomic approaches,” for reasons that don’t really fit into a tight lede sentence. Let’s just say that at times the problems involved both questions of authorship and the validity of the research. More on all that in a moment.

Meanwhile, things change. Now the journal, an Elsevier title, is un-retracting (that can’t be a real word, can it?) the retraction. You’d think that would please the authors, and it does to an extent. But they also wonder, legitimately, whether the original retraction will refuse to relinquish its grip on the resurrected article and consign it to database oblivion.

First, some background. Continue reading Retracted retraction leaves Genomics paper intact — but authors wonder if anyone will know

Report on pot and crime goes up in smoke as RAND retracts it

photo by Torbin Bjorn Hansen via Flickr http://flic.kr/p/4v9zbC

Maybe they just hallucinated it.

The RAND Corporation has retracted a study linking Los Angeles pot dispensaries to drops in crime, the Los Angeles Times reports. The problem: RAND hadn’t included data from the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). The institute tells the Times, referring to RAND researchers:

“They made mistakes,” said Debra Knopman, a Rand vice president and director of the infrastructure, safety and environment division. “What we’re wrestling with is how the mistakes went undetected.”

The report was peer-reviewed, RAND said, and retractions are uncommon: Continue reading Report on pot and crime goes up in smoke as RAND retracts it

National University of Singapore official who co-authored Melendez papers won’t be part of investigation

Barry Halliwell, courtesy NUS

The Alirio Melendez case is likely to become quite complicated, as the National University of Singapore (NUS) looks into about 70 papers by the researcher whose work has already been the subject of a retraction and Expression of Concern. One such wrinkle seemed to have already surfaced when a blog called the Gigamole Diaries pointed out last week that an NUS dean apparently connected to the investigation had co-authored two papers with Melendez:

…the authorship list for Melendez papers reads almost like a Who’s Who in the medical school, and includes heads of departments, Vice Deans and prominent individuals in the office of the NUS Vice President. Interestingly Prof Barry Halliwell, who is NUS Deputy President (Research and Technology), and who has been cited as fronting the investigation into the Melendez publications is himself associated with at least 2 Melendez publications.

We checked with Halliwell, who has indeed spoken to numerous media outlets about the investigation. He tells us: Continue reading National University of Singapore official who co-authored Melendez papers won’t be part of investigation

Should journals ban researchers found guilty of fraud from publishing?

Photo by Roshan Vyas via Flickr http://bit.ly/9VS0Fx

Over the past 14 months, we’ve covered several cases of retractions that were punished with publishing bans:

  • Serial image manipulator Naoki Mori was slapped with one by the American Society of Microbiology (ASM) – which publishes Infection and Immunity, The Journal of Clinical Microbiology, and others
  • The ASM banned another author, who plagiarized and did some not-so-legit fussing with his alleged co-authors
  • The Indian Journal of Dermatology won’t accept papers by three Tunisian authors after they were found guilty of plagiarism

That led us to ask the question that’s the title of this post, as well as of our newest column for Lab Times. Continue reading Should journals ban researchers found guilty of fraud from publishing?

Remaining Zhiguo Wang retractions will be in the Journal of Cellular Physiology

We’ve been following the case of Zhiguo Wang, the former Montreal Heart Institute researcher who was forced to resign his post in early September following an investigation into his work. At the time of that announcement, two retractions of the Wang group’s papers — which we had reported on in August — had appeared. The Institute said they had requested three more.

We figured that meant a total of five, although the Institute wouldn’t say which they were. So when we found out about a third retraction, in the Journal of Cell Science, we said it was the first of the remaining three.

We were wrong. Continue reading Remaining Zhiguo Wang retractions will be in the Journal of Cellular Physiology

You will not plagiarise. You will not plagiarise. You will not…but if you do, hypnosis journal will retract

The International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis is retracting a 2009 article by researchers who seem to have stolen material from a graduate student — and who are fond of studying memories from past lives in other work.

The article, “Norms for the Korean Version of the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A,” was written by Yun Joo Kim and Young Don Pyun, of the eponymous Pyun Neuropsychiatric Clinic, in Seoul, South Korea. The Pyun Clinic specializes in “hypnotherapy for psychiatric illness,” according to its website.

Here’s the retraction notice: Continue reading You will not plagiarise. You will not plagiarise. You will not…but if you do, hypnosis journal will retract

Concerns over language in PLoS One autism paper lead to brief withdrawal and correction

via Wikimedia

On September 28, PLoS One published a paper, “The Level and Nature of Autistic Intelligence II: What about Asperger Syndrome?”

But rather than celebrate another publication for her CV, one of the authors, Michelle Dawson, of Centre d’Excellence en Troubles Envahissants du Développement de l’Université de Montréal (CETEDUM) in Montréal, wasn’t happy. The PLoS One editors had made some changes she didn’t like. And she let everyone on Twitter know: Continue reading Concerns over language in PLoS One autism paper lead to brief withdrawal and correction

Can appendicitis be treated with antibiotics? Retraction muddies the waters

The Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery has retracted a 2009 article for plagiarism, but it almost seems like the editors were looking for any excuse to bail out on the troubled paper.

The article, “Conservative management of acute appendicitis,” by two researchers from Kashmir, India, purported to show that antibiotics might be a safe, surgery-sparing approach to appendicitis in some patients. The study has been cited 14 times by other papers, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowedge. It was also cited in a Consumer Reports article as evidence that as many as 10% of patients “get better without treatment” — a curious interpretation of the data.

But in February 2010, a group of surgeons from Bologna, Italy, challenged the Indian authors in a letter to the journal. The authors expressed interest in the concept, which they said had “significant clinical implications,” but took issue with the methodology of the study: Continue reading Can appendicitis be treated with antibiotics? Retraction muddies the waters