A new retraction has appeared in the journal Cell. The article, “DNA-PKcs-PIDDosome: A Nuclear Caspase-2-Activating Complex with Role in G2/M Checkpoint Maintenance,” had initially appeared in February 2009.
According to the notice: Continue reading Another Cell retraction, and more questions than answers
In what might be considered a model for how retraction notices should look, Psychological Science has retracted a 2008 paper, “Gaining control: Executive training and far transfer of the ability to resolve interference.” According to the notice — which includes two tables: Continue reading Where did I park my car? Psychological Science retracts working memory study
Last week, we started a new series at Retraction Watch, “Retractions we haven’t had a chance to cover.” The first edition had sort of an environmental theme. This one has a duplication and self-plagiarism theme. But it’s not always the authors’ fault, as you’ll learn. Continue reading Retractions we haven’t had a chance to cover, part 2: Duplication and plagiarism edition
Yesterday, we reported on 11 retractions in various Elsevier chemistry journals of papers from a group of Brazilian scientists who are alleged to have fabricated nuclear magnetic resonance images used in their articles.
We’d spoken with the senior author on those papers, Claudio Airoldi, who defended himself and his colleagues and denied that the NMR images had been manipulated.
Today, we heard from Tom Reller, vice president for global corporate relations at Elsevier, who offered a different version of events.
Here’s what Reller had to say, straight from his email: Continue reading Elsevier weighs in on Brazilian fraud case
We’re pleased to announce that we now have a regular column in Lab Times, the bimonthly magazine for European life scientists.
The topic of our first piece is one that we hope resonates with Retraction Watch readers. Drawing on our experience chasing down retraction notices, we call for all such notices — as well as all corrections — to be open access: Continue reading Why all retraction notices should be open access: Our first LabTimes column
The publisher Elsevier has announced that it is retracting 11 papers from a team of Brazilian researchers over concerns that the scientists committed fraud in the studies.
The notice is pegged to an October 2009 article in the Journal of Colloid and Interface Science titled “Immobilization of 5-amino-1,3,4-thiadiazole-thiol onto kanemite for thorium(IV) removal: Thermodynamics and equilibrium study” by Denis L. Guerra, Marcos A. Carvalho, Victor L. Leidens, Alane A. Pinto, Rúbia R. Viana, and Claudio Airoldi.
According to the notice: Continue reading Hazardous materials: Elsevier retracts 11 chemistry papers from Brazilian group, citing fraud
As many retractions as we cover here at Retraction Watch, there have been far more since we started blogging in August that we haven’t had the chance to report out fully. Some of those have been tips from our loyal readers — which we always appreciate, even if we can’t get to them immediately.
So rather than let all of these retractions molder on a list on our laptops, we’re starting an occasional series. In each post, we’ll highlight about five notices, adding whatever notes we have. If anyone has more information about any of these, we of course welcome it in the comments.
Here are the first five, several of which coincidentally have an environmental theme: Continue reading Retractions we haven’t had a chance to cover, part 1: Fishy fishery management, fluoride and kids’ IQ, and more
Last week, Retraction Watch readers will recall, we covered two retractions in Applied Mathematical Letters. They were both of papers that made many wonder just how they were published in the first place. One concluded that “Both science and spirituality came from space,” while the other claimed to have demonstrated violations of the second law of thermodynamics.
Given the attention to what we can reasonably conclude is a flawed peer review process at Applied Mathematical Letters, we hope that process will improve moving forward. That means one less outlet for questionable papers. So where might a researcher publish dodgy work?
We figured we’d start with Rejecta Mathematica, which describes itself as follows: Continue reading How to get dodgy math papers published: An algorithm
It’s an unusual move: Pediatric Allergy and Immunology has switched out the cover image in the online versions of its March issue, after realizing that likening allergies to a tsunami while Japan is struggling with the devastating effects of a real-life disaster could be “open to misinterpretation.” From an editor’s note: Continue reading Unfortunate timing: Journal retracts cover image, citing tsunami in Japan
There’s helpful but uninformative:
Ivan: What’s the weather like today?
Adam: Sunny.
And then there’s uninformative as served up by the Journal of Biological Chemistry.
We’ve already recounted one teeth-grinding experience with the JBC, a publication of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. The case involved two papers in JBC by Axel Ullrich, an esteemed cancer researcher at the Max Planck Institute in Germany. According to Ullrich, one of his then-postdocs, Naohito Aoki, had manipulated figures that appeared in the papers, necessitating their retraction.
Round two involves another JBC retraction of a 2000 paper by Aoki and co-author Tsukasa Matsuda, titled ‘A cytosolic protein-tyrosine phosphatase PTP1B specifically dephosphorylates and deactivates prolactin-activated STAT5a and STAT5b.’ The paper has been cited more than 100 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.
According to the notice: Continue reading Freedom from Information Act? Another JBC retraction untarnished by any facts