What do you do when a math paper that contains some “constructions and arguments [that] make no sense mathematically” gets published? If you’re Applied Mathematics Letters, you retract the paper, “For the origin of new geometry.” Here’s the notice:
It never pays to take a closer look at the inside of a chicken nugget. The journal Food Chemistry has retracted a 2010 article by Iranian researchers who claimed to have used spectroscopy to examine the inner workings of breaded-fried chicken nuggets. Trouble was, someone else had already done the work. Issues with the paper … Continue reading Which came first? Plagiarism flap forces retraction of chicken nugget paper
Amid criticisms this week that his former university didn’t do all it should have to investigate his work, another paper by Dirk Smeesters has been retracted. Here’s the notice for “The effect of color (red versus blue) on assimilation versus contrast in prime-to-behavior effects,” which appeared in The Journal of Experimental Social Psychology:
The Journal of Vascular Surgery is retracting — with vigor — a paper it published online in March after discovering that the authors had published essentially the same article for the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology some months earlier. Both papers are titled “Randomized controlled trial comparing treatment outcome of two compression … Continue reading Double bind: Duplication of bandaging paper leads to retraction
Today, on Thanksgiving in the U.S., Retraction Watch is taking a bit of a holiday as we dig into some turkey — not to be confused with retractions from Turkey. We’d like to give thanks for the thousands of Retraction Watch readers all over the world who’ve helped us shine a spotlight on the scientific … Continue reading Giving thanks for plagiarism detection software: Catching up on retractions for the sincerest form of flattery
The list of Ulrich Lichtenthaler retractions has grown to eight. Here’s the new notice, for “Externally commercializing technology assets: An examination of different process stages,” from the Journal of Business Venturing:
Canada’s University of Waterloo is racking up the retractions, with one in July for plagiarism, another earlier this month for faked data from a graduate student who had her master’s degree revoked, and now a third for duplication. Here’s the notice, for “The influence of friends, family, and older peers on smoking among elementary school … Continue reading Another retraction from University of Waterloo, this time for duplication
In circumstances we haven’t quite sorted out, an Australian climate researcher has retracted a paper because he didn’t have the right to use data from a now-shuttered government program. Ravinesh Deo, of the University of Southern Queensland, published “A review and modelling results of the simulated response of deforestation on climate extremes in eastern Australia” … Continue reading Australian government-funded study of deforestation, climate retracted for intellectual property conflicts
On May 11 of this year, Juan Antonio Baeza, an environmental engineering researcher at Universitat Autonoma Barcelona was looking for papers in Water Research about knowledge-based systems, the subject of his 1999 PhD thesis. As he tells Retraction Watch, when he came across “Improving the efficiencies of simultaneous organic substance and nitrogen removal in a … Continue reading How does it feel to have your scientific paper plagiarized? Part 2
As we’ve noted before, we generally let duplication retractions make their way to the bottom of our to-do pile, since there’s often less of an interesting story behind them, duplication is hardly the worst of publishing sins, and the notices usually tell the story. (These are often referred to — imprecisely — as “self-plagiarism.”) But … Continue reading You’ve been dupe’d: Catching up on authors who liked their work enough to use it again