Duplication retraction appears for ‘NASA Patriot Boy’ turned Indian scandal source

A computer scientist in India has lost a 2013 paper on satellite imaging because he submitted — and published — essentially the same article three times. The researcher, P.V. Arun, came to the attention of the Indian media last year after it emerged that he had lied about winning a post with NASA and other … Continue reading Duplication retraction appears for ‘NASA Patriot Boy’ turned Indian scandal source

Award-winning plant researcher correcting several papers critiqued on PubPeer

Olivier Voinnet, a researcher at ETH in Zurich and the winner of the 2013 Rössler Prize, is correcting a number of papers following critiques of more than a dozen of his studies on PubPeer. The work appears in journals including Cell and PNAS. Voinnet’s co-author on several of the papers, David Baulcombe, who is also … Continue reading Award-winning plant researcher correcting several papers critiqued on PubPeer

PubPeer Selections: “Too remarkable to believe;” a super-duplicate publication; what was acceptable in 2002?

Here’s another installment of PubPeer Selections:

Second retraction appears for Mart Bax

Retired Dutch anthropologist Mart Bax made a career out of making up papers, many of them on the Bosnian genocide. He retired from the Free University in Amsterdam in 2002. It wasn’t until 2013 that the university published a report indicating that Bax never published 61 of the papers he listed on his CV, and … Continue reading Second retraction appears for Mart Bax

“Incorrect data” kills apoptosis paper

Frontiers in Pharmacology has retracted a paper on baicalin, an antioxidant sold in health food stores, because it had both “incorrect data and invalid statistical analyses.” A comment on PubPeer notes that one of the figures (see image to the right) contains two similar-looking flow cytometry images labeled with different values, which could be what the … Continue reading “Incorrect data” kills apoptosis paper

Stem cell researchers sue Harvard, claiming faulty investigation lost them job offers

Piero Anversa, a stem cell researcher at the Brigham & Women’s Hospital, and a colleague, Annarosa Leri, have sued Harvard over an investigation into their work that they claim has cost them millions in a forfeited sale of their company, and job offers. The team has had a paper in Circulation retracted, and a paper in … Continue reading Stem cell researchers sue Harvard, claiming faulty investigation lost them job offers

ORI sanctions former University of Chicago and UCSF scientists for faking findings

The stories behind several recent inscrutable retraction notices became a bit more clear today when the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) issued findings in cases involving former researchers at the University of Chicago and the University of California, San Francisco. The ORI found that H. Rosie Xing, a former assistant professor at the University of … Continue reading ORI sanctions former University of Chicago and UCSF scientists for faking findings

PubPeer Selections: Spinal injury, theoretical physics, and inherited fear

This week, PubPeer filed a motion to quash a subpoena demanding that they reveal the names of some of their commenters. Here’s another installment of PubPeer Selections:

PubPeer files motion to dismiss Sarkar defamation case

Attorneys representing PubPeer in its defense against a subpoena by cancer researcher Fazlul Sarkar, of Wayne State University in Michigan, have submitted a motion to the Wayne County Circuit Court to quash the matter. Sarkar’s work has appeared on the anonymized post-publication peer review site, and he isn’t happy about it. In October, he sued … Continue reading PubPeer files motion to dismiss Sarkar defamation case

Italian researcher facing criminal charges notches seventh retraction

Alfredo Fusco, a researcher in Italy under criminal investigation, now has a seventh retraction for manipulated images. Here’s the notice for “Retraction: Identification of new high mobility group A1 associated proteins,” to which not all of the authors agreed: