Anil Potti reprimanded by North Carolina state medical board, as lawsuit settlements surface

There are a few new developments in the case of Anil Potti, the former Duke oncologist who resigned amidst an investigation into clinical trials he was running — and has been forced to retract seven papers, at last count.

Over the weekend, The Cancer Letter, which has been out front on this case, noted that the North Carolina Medical Board reprimanded Potti late last month. A reprimand carries no sanctions, but is entered into a physician’s public record. According to the consent decree: Continue reading Anil Potti reprimanded by North Carolina state medical board, as lawsuit settlements surface

Second retraction arrives in Alirio Melendez case

Alirio Melendez, whose former employer, the National University of Singapore, is investigating about 70 of his papers, has retracted a second study. Here’s the notice for the 2010 Journal of Molecular Cell Biology paper, “Sphingosine-1-phosphate mediates proliferation maintaining the multipotency of human Adult Bone Marrow and Adipose Tissue-derived Stem Cells:” Continue reading Second retraction arrives in Alirio Melendez case

Following investigation, U Ottawa lab retracting four papers in the Journal of Biological Chemistry

A University of Ottawa lab has been forced to retract four papers from the Journal of Biological Chemistry (JBC) after an investigation of image manipulation.

According to an email from a university official obtained by Retraction Watch, a university investigative committee had “found substance to the allegations,” although it claimed it could not disclose details “due to their confidentiality.” The university requested that the JBC withdraw a November 2005 paper, and left it to the journal to “determine whether the other articles should also be withdrawn or if they can be corrected. ” And they took the issue to the agency that funded the work: Continue reading Following investigation, U Ottawa lab retracting four papers in the Journal of Biological Chemistry

Science drops other shoe in Stapel case, retracts recent paper on chaos

At the beginning of November, Science issued an “editorial expression of concern” over a 2011 paper by the disgraced Dutch social psychologist Diederik Stapel, in the wake of an announcement by his former employer Tilburg University, that it had found evidence of fraud in Stapel’s body of work.

A month later, Science has gone the extra step, publishing a retraction notice by Stapel and his co-author, Siegwart Lindenberg. The notice, dated Dec. 1, 2011, makes it clear that Stapel acted alone in the matter: Continue reading Science drops other shoe in Stapel case, retracts recent paper on chaos

Zhiguo Wang retractions appear in the Journal of Cellular Physiology

Last month, we reported that the last three of six promised retractions by Zhiguo Wang, who was a researcher at the Montreal Heart Institute until the results of an Institute investigation forced him to resign in early September — would be in the Journal of Cellular Physiology. They’ve now appeared.

Here are the three notices, which are far more informative than the Journal of Biological Chemistry was — and which make it clear Wang acted alone: Continue reading Zhiguo Wang retractions appear in the Journal of Cellular Physiology

Bugging out: An opaque retraction notice reveals why an entomology journal only looks dark

We hope it doesn’t bug Retraction Watch readers that we’ve been writing about entomology more than usual this week. That’s because a reliable tipster has been sending us material that checks out.  Here’s another case, of a retraction that appeared some months ago in Entomological News. The retraction notice itself revealed little, but we did learn why the journal hasn’t published an issue in more than a year.

Here’s the notice: Continue reading Bugging out: An opaque retraction notice reveals why an entomology journal only looks dark

A model retraction notice in Retrovirology

A retraction appeared earlier this month in Retrovirology that we think could be a model for other scientists and journals facing similar situations. The paper by Canadian and Chinese authors, “The cellular source for APOBEC3G’s incorporation into HIV-1,” was originally published in January 2011 and cited just once, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge. Here’s the notice: Continue reading A model retraction notice in Retrovirology

Retraction of paper by Brazilian entomologist downgraded to an Expression of Concern

In August, we reported on an upcoming retraction of a paper in The Journal of Insect Behavior by Leonardo Gomes, a Brazilian forensic entomologist. At the time, one of the journal’s editors, Thomas Payne, told us that Gomes and his co-authors had been informed that “Dispersal and Burial Behavior in Larvae of Chrysomya megacephala and Chrysomya albiceps (Diptera, Calliphoridae),” would be retracted. Continue reading Retraction of paper by Brazilian entomologist downgraded to an Expression of Concern

Reason behind opaque Antioxidants & Redox Signaling retraction notice revealed

There’s an unhelpful retraction notice online in the journal Antioxidants & Redox Signaling, a Mary Ann Liebert publication. The paper, “Inhibition of LXRalpha-dependent steatosis and oxidative injury by liquiritigenin, a licorice flavonoid, as mediated with Nrf2 activation,” has been removed from the site, except for the abstract, which now has this in front of it:

THIS WORK HAS BEEN RETRACTED BY THE AUTHORS

That, as we’ve said before in exasperation, certainly clears things right up.

But we found out the reason for the retraction from Paul S. Brookes, an associate professor of anesthesiology at the University of Rochester Medical Center. Here’s the letter he sent the editors of Antioxidants & Redox Signaling and Free Radical Biology and Medicine, an Elsevier title: Continue reading Reason behind opaque Antioxidants & Redox Signaling retraction notice revealed

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: What retractions say about scientific transparency

photo by Cea via Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/centralasian/

Recently, Ivan has been invited to speak to two groups — the Danforth Center, in St. Louis, and CrossRef members, at their annual meeting in Cambridge, Mass. — about retractions and Retraction Watch. He gave variations on the talk below, “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: What Retractions Tell Us About Scientific Transparency.” In it, he discusses a number of cases we’ve uncovered at Retraction Watch, and offers some solutions for improving transparency. Use the arrows at the bottom of the slides to click through the presentation. Continue reading The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: What retractions say about scientific transparency