It seemed like an egregious violation of academic standards. A researcher forwarded us a data access agreement from the University of Oxford, in which Schedule 4 read as follows:
Case Reports in Dentistry has pulled a 2014 article about an oral parasitic infection (caution: not pretty) after learning that the authors were not exactly honest about their work. Here’s the abstract of the paper, “Rhinosporidiosis of the Parotid Duct”:
A 2012 expression of concern prompted by an authorship dispute has been upgraded to a retraction. As we reported in 2012, Revista Brasiliera de Reumatologia (aka the Brazilian Journal of Rheumatology) issued an expression of concern about “Anticitrullinated peptide antibodies and rheumatoid factor in Sudanese patients with Leishmania donovani infection” after a claim from one … Continue reading Bitter rheumatology authorship dispute ends in retraction
Sometimes, retractions seem to have a juicy back story, but the explanation proves tantalizingly out of reach. Such is the case for a law review retraction on a paper about reparations for human rights violations. After someone complained that author Gentian Zyberi “had not done sufficient justice to the substantial contribution” they made, the complainant refused … Continue reading Law review paper yanked for lack of attribution despite offer of co-authorship
The International Journal of Biochemistry & Cell Biology has retracted a 2013 paper by a group from China after learning that only the first author knew about the article. The paper was titled “Construction of circular miRNA sponges targeting miR-21 or miR-221 and demonstration of their excellent anticancer effects on malignant melanoma cells,” and it … Continue reading Forged authorship sinks melanoma paper
Cancer Science, the journal of the Japanese Cancer Association, has retracted a 2012 article by a group of researchers because, well, it wasn’t clear who made up the group in the first place. The article, “Antitumor activity of human γδ T cells transducted with CD8 and with T-cell receptors of tumor-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes,” appeared … Continue reading Dispute with “unlisted author whose claim to authorship could not be solved” topples cancer paper
An authorship dispute between a pair of Egyptian physicians has led to the retraction of their 2012 article on anesthetic technique for laparoscopic colon surgery. The article, “General anesthesia versus segmental thoracic or conventional lumbar spinal anesthesia for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy,” appeared in Anesthesia Essays and Researches — a publication of the Pan Arab Federation … Continue reading Authorship dispute topples anesthesia paper
Analytical Letters has retracted a 2011 article by a chemistry researcher at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio, who seems to have avoided giving credit where credit was due. The article, “Conducting Polymer Matrix Poly(2,2′-bithiophene) Mercury Metal Incorporation,” was written (so readers were told) by Suzanne Lunsford. Here’s how the retraction notice explains it:
The Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease is retracting a paper it published online in April by a group of Egyptian researchers in the wake of a dispute they couldn’t resolve. The article, “The Patterns and Criteria of Vaginal Douching and the Risk of Preterm Labor Among Upper Egypt Women,” came from a team at … Continue reading Study on douches and delivery retracted for authorship issue
The Journal of Neuro-Oncology wants you to ignore the following paper: “A single chain (scFv425):sTRAIL fusion protein with specificity for the EGF receptor is effective in vitro but not in an in vivo brain tumor animal model.” The 2007 article, from a group in The Netherlands, suffered from two fatal problems. According to the retraction … Continue reading “This publication should be ignored”: Authorship issues, flawed data fell neuro-oncology paper