Search Results for: pubpeer

Prostate cancer paper retracted after investigation can’t review original image

An article about how a COX-2 inhibitor (celecoxib) inhibits growth of prostate cancer in rats is being retracted after the authors were unable to provide an investigation committee at New York University with the backup they were asking for. When the paper was published in 2003, first author Bhagavathi Narayanan worked at the Institute for … Continue reading Prostate cancer paper retracted after investigation can’t review original image

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

Science flags immune-boosting paper under investigation

Science magazine has issued an expression of concern for a paper on the discovery of a new immune-boosting protein. The paper’s findings, which received some press coverage when they came out last spring, are now under investigation by Imperial College London. The expression of concern follows a correction noting a Western blot mix-up. Science Editor in Chief Marcia McNutt told … Continue reading Science flags immune-boosting paper under investigation

Weekend reads: 179 researchers indicted; how to reject a rejection; breaking the law on clinical trial data

The week at Retraction Watch featured more installments in the seemingly never-ending story of fake peer reviews. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Cancer researcher cleared of misconduct, inquiry finds “genuine error or honest oversight”

An investigation at the University of New South Wales in Australia has determined that a long-accused cancer researcher did not commit misconduct. The investigation did find instances when Levon Khachigian breached the code of conduct, but

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:

Paper claiming extra CO2 doesn’t always lower plant nutrients pulled for errors

Authors have retracted a large meta-analysis claiming that rising levels of carbon dioxide don’t always reduce nutrients in plants. After commenters on PubPeer raised concerns, the authors say they found several unintentional errors in their data that could “significantly change conclusions” of the paper in Plant Ecology, according to the retraction note. The paper found that the impact … Continue reading Paper claiming extra CO2 doesn’t always lower plant nutrients pulled for errors

Voinnet retracts highly cited paper, bringing his total to 7

Olivier Voinnet, a well-known plant scientist at the ETH in Zurich, has notched his 7th retraction for a highly cited paper. The 2003 paper was pulled when “additional image manipulations” came to light after The Plant Journal issued a correction earlier this year. The retraction follows an investigation into — and then retraction of — several other papers co-authored by Voinnet. The … Continue reading Voinnet retracts highly cited paper, bringing his total to 7

Management researcher with 7 retractions issues “clarifications” to 2013 paper

The authors of a paper on supportive supervisors just want readers to “better understand the reported findings,” and so have issued multiple “clarifications” in a corrigendum note. Some of the issues addressed in the note have been raised on PubPeer. The paper’s author list includes one Fred Walumbwa, formerly an Arizona State University management researcher, some … Continue reading Management researcher with 7 retractions issues “clarifications” to 2013 paper

A Retraction Watch retraction: Our 2013 advice on reporting misconduct turns out to have been wrong

Nearly three years ago, our co-founders Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus penned a column in Lab Times suggesting ways for readers to report alleged scientific misconduct. They are now retracting that advice. In the retracted column, they suggested initially contacting the editor of the journal that published the potentially problematic work, and if the editor suggests … Continue reading A Retraction Watch retraction: Our 2013 advice on reporting misconduct turns out to have been wrong