The pixels were barely dry on our post reporting the 14th and 15th retractions for management professor Ulrich Lichtenthaler Friday by the time his 16th retraction appeared. Here’s the notice for “The role of deliberate and experiential learning in developing capabilities: Insights from technology licensing,” a paper originally published in 2012 in the Journal of … Continue reading Ulrich Lichtenthaler retraction count rises to 16
It’s time to review the reviews. That’s the central message of a new paper in Trends in Ecology & Evolution , “Errors in science: The role of reviewers,” by Tamás Székely, Oliver Krüger, and E. Tobias Krause. The authors propose that the process of manuscript reviewing needs to be evaluated and improved by the scientific publishing … Continue reading Is it time for a journal Review Quality Index?
The authors of a Current Biology paper published online in February of this year have retracted it after voluminous criticism on post-publication review site PubPeer and a university committee found evidence of figure manipulation. The paper, “Agonist-Induced GPCR Shedding from the Ciliary Surface Is Dependent on ESCRT-III and VPS4,” was co-authored by Hua Jin and … Continue reading Authors retract Current Biology study following criticism on PubPeer and university investigation
A group at the University of Texas Southwestern led by Adi F. Gazdar that found evidence of inappropriate image manipulation in a number of their papers has retracted its seventh and eighth studies. Here’s the notice for 2005’s “Aberrant methylation profile of human malignant mesotheliomas and its relationship to SV40 infection,” in Oncogene:
Robert Getzenberg, a former Hopkins and Pitt cancer researcher, has retracted another paper, his seventh. Here’s the notice for “Highly specific urine-based marker of bladder cancer,” a paper first published in Urology in 2005:
Guest post by Jean Hazel Mendoza A group of researchers from France has retracted a 2013 paper from Molecular Cell after realizing that their analyses of microscopy images were flawed. Here’s the notice for “RecA-Promoted, RecFOR-Independent Progressive Disassembly of Replisomes Stalled by Helicase Inactivation:”
Karel Bezouška, who tried tampering with an investigation into his work by breaking into a lab refrigerator, has had a seventh paper retracted. Here’s the notice for “Carboxylated calixarenes bind strongly to CD69 and protect CD69+ killer cells from suicidal cell death induced by tumor cell surface ligands,” which was first published in Bioorganic & … Continue reading Seventh retraction appears for author who tampered with investigation
A recent paper proposing a way to “print any drug instantly” has been withdrawn by the author, following bewildered reactions from the blogosphere. The paper made the rounds at various chemistry-focused blogs last month. Derek Lowe of In The Pipeline picked up on it too, calling the article one of the oddest papers to appear … Continue reading Paper claiming a way to “print any drug instantly” gets unprinted
It’s been another busy week at Retraction Watch, mostly because of the unfolding Jens Förster story. Here’s what was happening elsewhere on the web:
A new paper in Intelligence is offering some, well, intel into the peer review process at one prestigious neuroscience journal. The new paper is about another paper, a December 2012 study, “Fractionating Human Intelligence,” published in Neuron by Adam Hampshire and colleagues in December 2012. The Neuron study has been cited 16 times, according to Thomson … Continue reading Anonymous blog comment suggests lack of confidentiality in peer review — and plays role in a new paper