Search Results for: elsevier

Paper on the adhesiveness of a material doesn’t stick

Applied Surface Science has retracted an article that looks at the structure of thin tungsten-titanium coating, because it was submitted without all of the co-authors’ consent. According to the introduction of the paper, “Structure adhesion and corrosion resistance study of tungsten bisulfide doped with titanium deposited by DC magnetron co-sputtering,” such thin films are “widely … Continue reading Paper on the adhesiveness of a material doesn’t stick

Weekend reads: “Research parasites;” CRISPR controversy; access to PACE data denied

The week at Retraction Watch featured a brewing case over GMO research, a 10-reason retraction. and a retraction and apology from the CBC. Before we get to this week’s reads from elsewhere, we’re happy to announce that we’re launching a daily email newsletter that will include posts from the last 24 hours, as well as links to … Continue reading Weekend reads: “Research parasites;” CRISPR controversy; access to PACE data denied

Four retractions follow Swedish government findings of negligence, dishonesty

A Swedish ethical review board has censured two biologists and their employer, Uppsala University, for events related to “extensive image manipulations” in five papers published between 2010 and 2014. The case has led to criticism from an outside expert — who brought the allegations to Uppsala — over the current system in Sweden for handling … Continue reading Four retractions follow Swedish government findings of negligence, dishonesty

Weekend reads: NFL, NIH butt heads on concussion research; should all papers be anonymous?

The week at Retraction Watch featured our annual roundup of the year’s top retractions for The Scientist, a retraction from Science, and claims about a book Aristotle never wrote. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Breakfast study mischaracterized funding by cereal group

PLOS ONE has quickly corrected an October analysis of what children in Malaysia eat for breakfast, after the study neglected to note it benefited from mistakenly noted an unrestricted research grant from cereal companies supported author salaries. The grant supported the salaries of research assistants, according to the correction note. Per the authors’ request, the journal has noted … Continue reading Breakfast study mischaracterized funding by cereal group

“Compromised” peer review hits three papers from Nature Publishing Group

Nature Publishing Group is retracting three papers today, after an investigation found evidence the peer-review process had been compromised. The publisher issued a statement saying they had notified corresponding authors and institutions associated with the three papers, which were all published last year in the journals Cancer Gene Therapy and Spinal Cord.  Here’s the note that’s going … Continue reading “Compromised” peer review hits three papers from Nature Publishing Group

Weekend reads: What do PhDs earn?; university refuses to release data; collaboration’s dark side

This week at Retraction Watch featured a look at the huge problem of misidentified cell lines, a check-in with a company that retracted a paper as it was about to go public, and Diederik Stapel’s 58th retraction. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Weekend reads: Retraction reluctance; worthless papers (and stats); too many PhDs

The week at Retraction Watch featured a new grant to our parent non-profit organization, a retraction from the NEJM, and our first-ever retraction. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Duplication shatters two photonic crystal papers

Two journals published by Elsevier are retracting a pair of material science papers that appear to share figures. The papers  — in Materials Letters and Optics Communications — discuss photonic crystals, a kind of material used to manipulate light. They share the same first author, Zheng-qi Liu at Jiangxi Normal University and  Nanjing University in China, as well as … Continue reading Duplication shatters two photonic crystal papers

“Significant errors in the data” stop Hurricane Isaac paper

This version of Hurricane Isaac — based on the force of nature that hit Louisiana in 2012 —  didn’t get very far. Atmospheric Research has retracted a paper on a simulation of the hurricane just a few months after it was published. The paper included two features that commonly get a paper retracted: erroneous data, and a dispute over … Continue reading “Significant errors in the data” stop Hurricane Isaac paper