“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

Weekend reads: Papers de-emphasized for funding; reproducibility revolution; reining in fraud in China

The week at Retraction Watch featured a particularly misleading retraction notice, and a university stripping a graduate of her PhD for misconduct. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Weekend reads: The end of journals?; Impact Factor for sale; fake peer reviews earn funding bans

This morning, our thoughts are with the people of Paris. The week at Retraction Watch featured the retraction of a paper claiming dramatically higher rates of sexual trauma among men in the military, and a look at whether gender plays a role in peer review. Also: We’re hiring. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

“Dual submission issues” retract both copies of ovarian cancer paper

Authors of a study on a potential biomarker for ovarian cancer have been hit with two retractions after the results were published twice. We don’t usually see both copies of a duplicated paper retracted, but this is a somewhat unusual case. In November 2011, a group of authors submitted the paper to Gynecologic Oncology. But two months’ prior, the … Continue reading “Dual submission issues” retract both copies of ovarian cancer paper

University investigating duplicated images in retracted paper

The authors of a Cell Metabolism paper are pulling it after discovering blot images that “appear more than once in independent and unrelated experiments.”  Just how the duplication occurred in the 2009 paper — about transcription of mitochondrial DNA — remains a mystery, the authors note: …the reasons for the errors are still under investigation… Meanwhile, … Continue reading University investigating duplicated images in retracted paper

Retraction strikes power grid paper with “almost identical” content to previous study

An electrical engineering paper published in April has been retracted because of similarities to a 2012 paper from different authors, including “almost identical” data in two of the papers’ tables. The authors were unable to provide the original numbers for the suspect tables, along with a pair of “similar” figures, which bore a striking resemblance … Continue reading Retraction strikes power grid paper with “almost identical” content to previous study