*Savaskan and Nitsch, forced to retract FASEB J paper, correct Cell study with duplicated figure

In August, we wrote about the complicated case of a paper retracted from FASEB Journal that had originally been slated for a correction instead. There had been allegations of misconduct by one of the authors, Nicolai E. Savaskan, and the key parts of the retraction notice for the paper were as follows:

A well-recognized and top-class fact finding commission concluded that the publication contains gross flaws. A key figure (Figure 14) and the conclusions drawn from it could not be underlined with the corresponding primary data.

Savaskan told us at the time that FASEB Journal had agreed to a correction of the figure in question, but ended up retracting the paper after receiving a letter from Annette Gruters-Kieslich at Charite – Universitatsmedizin Berlin, where the work was done. We didn’t get much of an answer from FASEB Journal about why they changed their minds.

*Since understanding why one paper warrants a correction and another gets retracted is important for us at Retraction Watch, a correction of a 2009 Cell paper by a group that included Savaskan and his FASEB J c0-author Robert Nitsch caught our eye. The correction for “Synaptic PRG-1 Modulates Excitatory Transmission via Lipid Phosphate-Mediated Signaling” — a paper cited nine times so far, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge — ran in the September 16, 2011 issue of Cell: Continue reading *Savaskan and Nitsch, forced to retract FASEB J paper, correct Cell study with duplicated figure

Stapel inquiry widens to the University of Groningen, University of Amsterdam

The University of Groningen (UG) has launched an investigation the conduct of Diederik Stapel, the social psychologist accused of fabricating his research.

According to a Google translation of a UG press release: Continue reading Stapel inquiry widens to the University of Groningen, University of Amsterdam

More on Hattori case from co-author: Did grudge lead to scientist’s fall?

We have an update on the case of Yoshiyuki Hattori, the Japanese endocrinologist who has had a half-dozen papers retracted because of issues involving reused data. We’ve reported on some of those retractions, and report on three new ones here.

As a trainee, Hattori spent some time in England, where he met Steven Gross, a prominent pharmacology researcher at Cornell. Gross was impressed with the young physician-scientist, and invited him back to his New York City laboratory to do a postdoc.

Gross’ name appears on one of the retracted articles, “NO suppresses while peroxynitrite sustains NF-κB: a paradigm to rationalize cytoprotective and cytotoxic actions attributed to NO,” which appeared in 2004 in the journal Cardiovascular Research and has been cited 42 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

According to the notice: Continue reading More on Hattori case from co-author: Did grudge lead to scientist’s fall?

The ‘Goldilocks’ retraction? Revealing differences in how several neurology journals handled related problems

Four neurology journals have retracted articles by a Japanese researcher who admitted to having made “mistakes” in his handling of data. Although the cases are related, the way the journals have handled the  notices is startlingly different. One chose to say nothing, one chose to say little, while two went for full — or at least, approximately that — disclosure.

Guess which ones we like the most? Continue reading The ‘Goldilocks’ retraction? Revealing differences in how several neurology journals handled related problems

Why did Science partially retract the XMRV-chronic fatigue syndrome paper?

If past experience is any indication, billions of pixels will be spilled in the coming days as scientists and advocates debate the latest twist in the story of XMRV, or xenotropic murine leukemia-related virus, and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Today’s news is that Science is partially retracting a 2009 paper by Judy Mikovits and colleagues, including Vincent Lombardi, purporting to show a link between the virus and the syndrome — a paper about which they issued an Expression of Concern in May. The retraction is of a table and a figure — more on that in a bit.

In an excellent blow-by-blow account in Science of the nearly 20-year-long saga, also out today, Jon Cohen and Martin Enserink review the unusual circumstances of that Expression of Concern. Science editor-in-chief Bruce

Alberts and Science Executive Editor Monica Bradford had first suggested that Mikovits and her co-authors retract the paper voluntarily. “Science feels it would be in the best interest of the scientific community,” they wrote in a 26 May letter. Mikovits was livid and questioned Alberts’s motives. “Who wrote that letter? I don’t think it was Science,” she says. The co-authors thought the retraction request was premature, too. “What if we walk away from this based on contamination and it’s not contamination?” Lombardi asked. “You’ve got to give us time to figure this out.”

Alberts stresses that they floated the retraction idea because Science already planned to publish the Expression of Concern. “It wasn’t a public call for retraction,” he notes, emphasizing that the recipients shared it with the media. He also does not think it would have been premature, although he says it’s often a tough call whether to retract a paper. “Ultimately, it requires expert judgment and a lot of sensitivity to the issues,” he says. “We had lost confidence in the results.”

As Science noted in May, two studies accompanied the May Expression of Concern Continue reading Why did Science partially retract the XMRV-chronic fatigue syndrome paper?

Should authors have to retract papers based on data obtained unethically?

via Kent State http://bit.ly/r2CW44

Careful Retraction Watch readers may have noticed that one of the categories in our right-hand column under “by reason for retraction” is “lack of IRB approval.” That’s because in just over a year, we’ve written a number of posts about two cases of retractions for that reason.

One was the now-infamous case of Joachim Boldt, who has retracted some 90 papers. The other was more mundane, about a group studying injuries among Aussie rules football players. 

These retractions — and another case in which lung cancer screening trial investigators have said 90 percent of their consent forms are unobtainable, according to The Cancer Letter and The New York Times — raise some important ethical questions that we explore in our latest LabTimes column. Excerpt: Continue reading Should authors have to retract papers based on data obtained unethically?

Unveiled: Anonymous researcher found guilty of fraud in Canadian funding agency documents

Margaret Munro, a Postmedia News reporter whose work we’ve had the chance to admire before, has a few great stories running in Canadian papers today about what happened in some recent scientific fraud investigations.

She bases the stories on  Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) documents obtained under a freedom of information request. NSERC — which provides $1 billion per year for research — seems to have gone far out of its way to keep the names of the researchers a secret.

In one set of heavily redacted documents, however, they did mention a December 2008 retraction. As Retraction Watch readers know, we investigate retractions…well, not exactly for a living, but we sure spend a lot of time doing it. So we threw ourselves at our favorite database and made some connections.

Long story short: We’re quite sure we’ve found the unnamed researcher. Continue reading Unveiled: Anonymous researcher found guilty of fraud in Canadian funding agency documents

Nature Medicine paper by former Montreal Heart Institute researcher Zhiguo Wang unlikely to be retracted

We’ve been reporting on the case of Zhiguo Wang, the Montreal Heart Institute researcher who was dismissed earlier this month for scientific misconduct. In the announcement about Wang’s dismissal, the institute said it had requested the retraction of three papers other than the two that Wang had himself retracted earlier this summer, making a total of five.

We’ve been following up with journals that published Wang’s work, with the help of eagle-eyed Retraction Watch readers, and last week reported on the first of those three additional retractions, in the Journal of Cell Science. Late last week, we heard from Juan Carlos Lopez, the chief editor of Nature Medicine, which had published a paper by the group. Lopez had earlier said he was waiting for a Montreal Heart Institute report on their findings. He tells us it’s unlikely the Nature Medicine paper will be among those retracted: Continue reading Nature Medicine paper by former Montreal Heart Institute researcher Zhiguo Wang unlikely to be retracted

Group retracts Nature Immunology paper for figure irregularities after posting a correction to Science

courtesy NPG

We’re following the case of a group that recently retracted a Nature Immunology paper for figure irregularities, soon after being forced to correct images in a Science paper for similar reasons.

The Nature Immunology paper, “The helminth product ES-62 protects against septic shock via Toll-like receptor 4–dependent autophagosomal degradation of the adaptor MyD88,” has been cited just twice since it appeared online in February 2011, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge. The retraction notice, which appeared online on July 19: Continue reading Group retracts Nature Immunology paper for figure irregularities after posting a correction to Science

Brown bear, brown bear, what do you see? I see fraud in sexual selection infanticide commentary

From the, No Further Explanation Required files:

The journal Animal Behaviour has retracted a 2009 article by an international group of researchers who, well, did just about everything one could do wrong with a paper.

Here’s the notice, res ipsa loquitur: Continue reading Brown bear, brown bear, what do you see? I see fraud in sexual selection infanticide commentary