The journal Safety Science has retracted a 2013 paper by a group of engineers from Brazil who had published the article previously, albeit in a much abbreviated form, a year earlier. What makes this case more than a straightforward matter of duplication/self-plagiarism is that the authors greatly expanded upon the earlier article. The initial paper … Continue reading Should this engineering paper have been retracted?
The paper is dead. Long live the paper! Earlier this year, we brought you the case of a group of Brazilian insect researchers who lost two 15-year-old papers in different journals for duplication. One of those papers has been resurrected, albeit in a rather puzzling way. The article, “Non-local interactions and the dynamics of dispersal … Continue reading A retracted retraction? Authors salvage entomology paper with image issues
Two journals have retracted five papers by a researcher in Taiwan who evidently took the notion of teamwork a little too liberally. The first notice is one we missed when it came out in 2012 in the British Journal of Educational Technology. The article, “Learning in troubleshooting of automotive braking system: a project-based teamwork approach,” … Continue reading Five plagiarism retractions appear for Taiwan engineer
Has anyone seen our irony meter? The author of a 2003 study on “the ethics of being first” is retracting it because it turns out he had already published it elsewhere — making it, well, not first. Here’s the retraction notice for “Surgical Research and the Ethics of Being First,” the Journal of Value Inquiry … Continue reading Who’s on first? Paper on “the ethics of being first” retracted because it was…second
A plant scientist at the Colorado State University has retracted a fifth paper. Here’s the notice for “Influence of ATP-binding cassette transporters in root exudation of phytoalexins, signals, and in disease resistance, a paper originally published in July 2012: The Journal, Chief Editor and the Authors wish to retract the Original Research article cited above … Continue reading Image manipulation leads to fifth retraction for plant research group
Ariel Fernandez, an Argentine chemist (who claims to hold the fastest-awarded PhD from Yale) and the subject of institutional investigations at multiple universities, has corrected several papers recently. What makes the moves particularly unusual — and interesting — is the stated reason for the amendments: disclaiming any funding from the National Institutes of Health for … Continue reading Researcher who threatened Retraction Watch with lawsuit corrects funding source for several papers
Irony alert: If you’re going to publish a paper on purportedly new molecules, please try to make sure those substances are indeed novel. Here’s case were that wasn’t quite so. The Journal of Saudi Chemical Society has retracted a 2011 paper by a researcher who lifted the entire article from a previously published paper by … Continue reading Saudi journal retracts paper on new chemicals for being, well, not new
A group of researchers in India has lost two articles in the plant literature for shenanigans with duplicate submission. One article, “Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation and efficient regeneration of a timber yielding plant Dalbergia sissoo Roxb,” appeared online last June in the journal. The authors were from institutions in Orissa. According to the retraction notice, the paper … Continue reading Plant journals uproot duplicate publications that authors used as a hedge
The press corps has turned its attention to scientific publishing in China this week. Here’s Naomi Ching’s lede — that’s how we spell it in journalism — from Nautilus: You may have heard that Chinese researchers are not very well compensated, compared to their Western counterparts. What you might not know is that they can … Continue reading Big trouble in little China: Two looks at what warps scientific publishing there
Dong Hee Shin, who studies virtual reality and other technology and who has already retracted five papers, has had another retracted. Here’s the notice in the Journal of Media Economics: