Alirio Melendez, the former National University of Singapore researcher who has already retracted two papers in the midst of an investigation into about 70 of his publications, has had a third retracted a third. Here’s the notice from the Journal of Cellular Physiology:
A while back (last June, to be precise), we wrote about a group of Japanese endocrinologists who found a creative way to up their citation counts using duplicate publication. At the time, the researchers were docked a 2004 paper in the Journal of Steroid Biochemistry & Molecular Biology that had self-plagiarized extensively from a 2003 article in Cell. Well, … Continue reading Cell paper, once plagiarized, pulled for dodgy figures
It’s never a good sign when a paper has “severe” problems with its data. But when even the researchers are at a loss to explain how those problems made their way into the manuscript, well, that’s downright alarming. Consider: The journal Clinical and Translational Allergy has retracted a 2011 article by researchers from Egypt and … Continue reading Paper linking vitamin C and reduced asthma retracted after authors find “severe” problems with data
Antioxidants & Redox Signalling has issued much more detailed retraction notice for a paper it pulled last year that was marred by duplicate data. As we reported then, the journal’s initial notice for the 2011 article, titled “Inhibition of LXRa-dependent steatosis and oxidative injury by liquiritigenin, a licorice flavonoid, as mediated with Nrf2 activation,” was … Continue reading Redox, redux: Journal pulls paper over data problems
Blood Cells, Molecules, and Diseases (that’s one title) has retracted a 2011 paper, “Comparative proteomics reveals deficiency of NHE-1 (Slc9a1) in RBCs from the beta-adducin knockout mouse model of hemolytic anemia,” after learning from a reader that the data it contained were previously published by a competing publication. As the notice explains:
If that headline has you scratching your, well, head, we don’t blame you. After all, case studies are, by definition, unique — but not this one. Neurological Sciences, the official journal of the Italian Society of Neurology, has retracted a 2009 article by a Korean scientist after learning that the manuscript contained elements of a … Continue reading Neuro journal retracts case study with redundant data
Last July, we reported on four retractions by a group of researchers at the University of Louisville, and we noted that the scientists’ work was under investigation. That investigation has apparently concluded, according to a retraction notice in the American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology for two of their papers:
Current Opinion in Gastroenterology is a bimonthly journal “offering a unique and wide ranging perspective on the key developments in the field” that “features hand-picked review articles from our team of expert editors.” Apparently, those hands picked what amounted to the same “unique” article twice. The journal is retracting a 2004 paper, “Enteral feeding,” by … Continue reading Gastro journal retracts duplicate review, but what really happened?
Earlier this month, we highlighted the concerns of the editors of the ACS Nano journal about self-plagiarism, otherwise known as duplication. The editor of the American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR) — that’s radiology, for the uninitiated — has similar concerns, but about plagiarism of others’ work. In an editorial published in the journal’s January issue, Thomas Berquist notes: Preliminary data including … Continue reading How to avoid retractions for plagiarism: Advice from a radiology journal editor (and arXiv)
Have you seen this correction, from the September 8, 2011 issue of Nature, for “Tumour vascularization via endothelial differentiation of glioblastoma stem-like cells?” The figures and Supplementary figures of this Letter are affected by errors and improper editing. The correct figures are now provided, with an explanation of the variations. The original Letter has not … Continue reading We’re mostly wrong, but trust us: Our column on mega-corrections for Lab Times