Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process
Retraction Watch's Latest Posts
The Journal of Materials Chemistry B has issued a laundry list of corrections for a 2014 chemotherapy paper, which address re-use of “some text”, incorrectly stated doses, and miscalculations of the drug concentration, among other issues. The paper described a new way to deliver gemcitabine via nanoparticles, focusing the drug on the tumors. It turns out the […]The post Drug paper gets a fix, notching several corrections appeared first on Retraction Watch.
A paper on gold nanoparticles has been retracted after the publisher learned one of the figures had a “high degree of similarity” to a figure published by other authors a few months prior. According to the notice, it was two authors of the retracted paper themselves who pointed out the overlap. The first author, Pratap Sahoo, […]The post Nothing gold can stay: gold nanoparticle paper retracted for figure theft appeared first on Retraction Watch.
Weekend reads: Monsanto demands retraction; fast-track peer review for fee scrutinized; fraud in China
This week at Retraction Watch featured 43 papers retracted at once for fake peer reviews. Here’s what was happening elsewhere: Monsanto wants a WHO report linking their weed killer to cancer retracted. A pilot project by Nature Publishing Group’s Scientific Reports to offer fast-track peer review for a fee has sparked the resignation of one […]The post Weekend reads: Monsanto demands retraction; fast-track peer review for fee scrutinized; fraud in China appeared first on […]
A paper on apoptosis in mice has been retracted by Infection and Immunity after a reader tipped them off that several figures were “not faithful representations of the original data.” When the journal, published by the American Society for Microbiology (ASM), contacted the authors at Anhui Medical University in Hefei, China, they claimed they couldn’t provide the […]The post “Not faithful” figures kill apoptosis paper appeared first on Retraction […]
Prominent plant researcher Mark Estelle has retracted a paper on plant hormones after follow-up studies showed the conclusions were incorrect. The hormone in question, auxin, is a major player in plant growth and development. The retracted Current Biology paper reported that a certain auxin receptor, designated AFB4, downregulates the responses of cabbage-cousin Arabidopsis thaliana to the signaling molecule. But […]The post Cabbage batch skids: new experiments dry up […]
Log in to leave a comment