Data manipulation in a Cell Reports paper blew the importance of a kind of bacteria out of proportion. Retracted this month — less than three months after it was published — the paper showed, according to a summary on the cover page: B. subtilis is a symbiont that resides in the gut of C. elegans and generates nitric oxide that … Continue reading Data manipulation flushes paper on gut bacteria
A team of biologists have earned a fifth retraction for a paper containing manipulated images, following an investigation by the Swedish government. Last year, the investigation found that former Uppsala University doctoral student Apiruck Watthanasurorot had manipulated figures in five papers, four of which have already been retracted. Earlier this year, we reported that his … Continue reading Biologists earn 5th retraction following Swedish investigation
Here’s a joke for all you middle-schoolers out there. How are doctored images like bad pennies? They keep cropping up! Here’s the latest one we’ve picked up: Lung Cancer has retracted a 2014 paper on the genetics of tumors after concluding the authors cribbed a figure that had appeared in a 2005 feature story in … Continue reading Cancer paper that doctored image from Science story earns retraction
Authors of a highly cited biology paper in the Journal of Cell Science (JCS) have corrected the data underlying one of the figures. The 2003 paper, “The transcription factor Slug represses E-cadherin expression and induces epithelial to mesenchymal transitions: a comparison with Snail and E47 repressors,” has been cited 566 times, according to Thomson Reuters Web … Continue reading Authors correct highly cited biology paper due to “genuine mistake”
With PubPeer and other online resources (such as PubMed Commons and our comment section), it’s never been easier for readers to raise public suspicions of published papers. But what should we do when we learn about potential problems in papers that are decades old, and all of the authors are deceased? That’s the question we’re asking … Continue reading Poll: Should there be a statute of limitation on retractions?
A researcher who studies how others communicate is struggling with his own communications: Peter J. Schulz has lost two book chapters for misappropriating the work of others, and is under investigation by his university. Although the publisher believes the errors were unintentional, the retractions have prompted it to stop selling the books altogether. Schulz now has a total of … Continue reading Communications researcher loses two book chapters, investigated for plagiarism
A researcher formerly based at the National Cancer Institute has earned three new retractions following an investigation that found she committed misconduct. In May of last year, Stephanie Watkins, who now works at Loyola Medicine, earned one two retraction, which mentions a review by an investigation committee at the National Institutes of Health. Two of the new notes, published in … Continue reading Cancer researcher earns 3 more retractions following NIH misconduct investigation
Today colleges and universities face a crisis of accountability in two domains: scientific misconduct and sexual harassment or assault. Scientific misconduct and sexual harassment/assault are obviously different, but the way they are reported, handled, and play out have many similarities. Michael Chwe at the University of California in Los Angeles has been thinking about this for … Continue reading Scientific misconduct and sexual harassment: Similar problems with similar solutions?
There’s something strange about a 2008 paper on the role of nicotine receptors in promoting lung cancer: One of the western blot analyses looks like a version of an image from a commercial catalog. A commenter on PubPeer pointed out the similarities between an image in “Role of α7-nicotinic acetylcholine receptor in human non-small cell lung cancer proliferation,” which was published in Cell … Continue reading Does this scientific image look familiar? It’s from a catalog
Authors have retracted a 2002 paper from PNAS because part of a figure “may have been fabricated,” and they no longer have the original data to prove otherwise. The paper in question, “Deficient Smad7 expression: A putative molecular defect in scleroderma,” studied the signaling pathways that may underlie the autoimmune disease. It has been cited 198 times, according … Continue reading Authors pull 14-year-old paper from PNAS over concerns of fabrication