The editors of the journal Micron — an Elsevier title — have retracted its first paper ever, and in an editorial marking the occasion, take on a number of issues in scientific publishing misconduct. The beginning of the editorial (which is paywalled):
We have an update on the case of Pankaj Dhonukshe, a scientist about whom we reported in November. Utrecht University has found that Dhonukshe, a former researcher at the Dutch university, committed “a violation of academic integrity” in work that led to a number of papers, including one published in Nature and once since retracted … Continue reading Utrecht University finds “violation of academic integrity” by former researcher
Blood has retracted two 2013 illustrations of red cells by researchers from South Africa and the United States because, somewhat confusingly, they didn’t conform to the journal’s criteria for publishing such material. Here’s the notice for one of the images, “Red blood cell and platelet interactions in healthy females during early and late pregnancy, as … Continue reading Blood retracts two red cell illustrations that “could have misled” readers
Shigeaki Kato, the former University of Tokyo endocrinology researcher found to have manipulated images in dozens of papers, has six more retractions, bringing his total to 23. Five of them appear in Molecular and Cellular Biology:
Sometimes, an Expression of Concern says a heck of a lot without — as befits the genre — coming to a particular conclusion. Take this (paywalled)* example describing a paper from a group at Huazhong Science and Technology University, Wuhan, China:
One of the issues that comes up frequently when we’re moderating comments here on Retraction Watch is the distinction between “I think these images look strange” and “this researcher committed fraud.” That’s a pretty important distinction, because potentially actionable cases of libel live somewhere in between, probably closer to the latter — as Paul Brookes … Continue reading Where’s the line between scientific post-publication peer review critiques and libel?
There were lots of pieces about scientific misconduct, publishing, and related issues posted around the web this week, so without further ado:
The Journal of Virology has retracted a 2010 article on avian viruses marred by signs of bogus data. The paper, “Avian Reovirus Nonstructural Protein p17-Induced G2/M Cell Cycle Arrest and Host Cellular Protein Translation Shutoff Involve Activation of p53-Dependent Pathways,” came from a group at National Pingtung University of Science and Technology, in Pingtung, China. … Continue reading Data manipulation knocks bird virus paper off perch
Japanese health officials are reportedly investigating whether researchers fabricated data in a 2.8 billion yen ($21.12 million) Alzheimer’s drug trial. According to Japan Today: Health officials said they were questioning researchers after being told false data was used in clinical testing for the 2.8 billion yen government-backed Alzheimer’s study, aimed at improving diagnosis of the … Continue reading Japan officials allege data cooking in Alzheimer’s drug study
Researchers have retracted a fourth paper following an investigation at Cardiff University that found evidence of image manipulation by a researcher named Rossen Donev. Here’s the notice for “The mouse complement regulator CD59b is significantly expressed only in testis and plays roles in sperm acrosome activation and motility,” a paper first published in Molecular Immunology … Continue reading Fourth retraction results from Cardiff investigation