Time for another installment of Ask Retraction Watch: Let’s say I’m collecting relevant papers to write a review, or preparing a project, and I have rather limited time. I find a few interesting papers, bump into some paywalls, ask the authors for the .pdf without any response, and finally I decide to pay, say, $20 … Continue reading Should readers get a refund when they pay to access seriously flawed papers?
A pair of researchers at the University of Maryland have retracted a paper in Cell Death & Differentiation after it became clear that one of the figures had been duplicated from an earlier paper. Here’s the notice, dated December 13, 2013, for “INrf2 (Keap1) targets Bcl-2 degradation and controls cellular apoptosis,” by Suryakant Niture and … Continue reading Figure duplication kills cell death paper
The authors of a 2008 study purporting to explain how the herbicide atrazine acts on cancer cells have asked the journal that published it to retract it for “inadvertent errors,” Retraction Watch has learned. The notice for “G-Protein-Coupled Receptor 30 and Estrogen Receptor-a are Involved in the Proliferative Effects Induced by Atrazine in Ovarian Cancer … Continue reading Herbicide-ovarian cancer study to be retracted
If you’ve come across a case of plagiarism and want to report it to the proper authorities, a new article in the journal Ethics & Behavior would be a good place to start. Mark Fox, a professor of management and entrepreneurship at Indiana University, and Jeffrey Beall, a librarian at the University of Colorado, Denver, … Continue reading Want to report a case of plagiarism? Here’s how
We’ve been reporting on retractions of research published by Cardiff University scientists following an investigation into their work. On Monday, we noted a new retraction of work by the group in Cancer Research, which we thought was the second retraction following one in the Journal of Immunology in 2011. But it turns out there was … Continue reading A third retraction stemming from Cardiff investigations
PubMed today launches a pilot version of PubMed Commons, a system that enables researchers to share their opinions about scientific publications. Researchers can comment on any publication indexed by PubMed, and read the comments of others. In general, we’re big fans of post-publication peer review, as Retraction Watch readers know. Once it’s out of its … Continue reading PubMed now allows comments on abstracts — but only by a select few
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
MIT’s Robert Weinberg, a leading cancer researcher who retracted a Cancer Cell paper earlier this year for “inappropriate presentation” of figures, has corrected a different paper in the same journal. Here’s the correction for “Species- and Cell Type-Specific Requirements for Cellular Transformation:” We were apprised recently of errors made in the assembly of Figures 2B, … Continue reading A Cancer Cell mega-correction for highly cited researcher who retracted paper earlier this year
Yesterday we reported that Cell was looking into problematic images in a recent paper on human embryonic stem cell cloning. We’ve now heard from the journal about the nature of the inquiry. Mary Beth O’Leary, a spokeswoman for Cell Press — an Elsevier title — tells us that: Based on our own initial in-house assessment … Continue reading Cell attributes image problems in cloning paper to “minor” errors; sees no impact on conclusions
Cell is looking into whether the authors of a widely hailed study published last week claiming to have turned human skin cells into embryonic stem cells manipulated images inappropriately, Retraction Watch has learned. The potential image problems came to light on PubPeer, a site designed to allow for post-publication peer review. A commenter, identified as … Continue reading Cell reviewing allegations of image reuse in human embryonic stem cell cloning paper