Search Results for: elsevier

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An electrical engineering paper published in April has been retracted because of similarities to a 2012 paper from different authors, including “almost identical” data in two of the papers’ tables.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

Diederik Stapel retraction count updated to 57

We’ve learned about two more retractions we missed for Diederick Stapel, the Dutch social psychology researcher who has now racked up a total of 57 retractions by our count. Both retractions were issued after a committee released a report which established fraud in dozens of papers co-authored by Stapel. Stapel is still #4 on our leaderboard.

Weekend reads: Angry meta-analysts; imposter cell lines; when things go wrong

This week at Retraction Watch featured nine more fake peer review retractions, this time from Elsevier, and an update to the retraction count for one-time record holder Joachim Boldt. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

There’s “no evidence” research was conducted at all in retracted cancer paper

To one reader of a paper on a nerve cancer, the researchers, based at a hospital in China, seemed to have found a very large number of cases of a rare cancer to study. That observation triggered an investigation into the paper that led to its retraction — and the concern that the authors in the paper never did … Continue reading There’s “no evidence” research was conducted at all in retracted cancer paper

Investigation finds “careless data workup” in alcoholism drug paper

An investigation at Karolinska Institute has led to the retraction of a paper about drug treatments for alcoholics, after concluding the article contains a “very careless data workup.” The paper, “Memantine enhances the inhibitory effects of naltrexone on ethanol consumption,” found that the drug memantine (normally used to treat Alzheimer’s) enhances the effects of naltrexone in rats, which blocks the … Continue reading Investigation finds “careless data workup” in alcoholism drug paper

Biologist banned by second publisher

Plant researcher Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva has been banned from submitting papers to any journals published by Taylor & Francis. The reason: “continuing challenges” to their procedures and the use of “inflammatory language.” This is the second time Teixeira da Silva has been banned by a publisher —  last year Elsevier journal Scientia Horticulturae told him that … Continue reading Biologist banned by second publisher

Marine mammal injury study retracted for using restricted gov’t data

A 2012 paper that analyzed injuries to aquatic mammals in China has been retracted “due to the usage of restricted data from the Ministry of Agriculture of China.” The authors — from Shandong University in China, The University of Hong Kong and the Peruvian Centre for Cetacean Research — “organized the collection of official documents related to strandings, bycatches … Continue reading Marine mammal injury study retracted for using restricted gov’t data

Weekend reads: Country retraction rankings; social psychology department replication rankings

This week at Retraction Watch featured an ironic case of what doesn’t make a journal great, and the retraction of a paper from JAMA. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Weekend reads: “Unfeasibly prolific authors;” why your manuscript will be rejected; is science broken?

The week at Retraction Watch featured revelations of yet more fake peer reviews, bringing the retraction total to 250. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: