Not your data: Nursing paper retracted for misuse of findings

We’re all for research on improving communication and collaboration among colleagues. But we trust that the experts know what they’re doing. You can see where this is going.

The journal Nurse Education Today has retracted a 2012 article, “Interprofessional learning in acute care: Developing a theoretical framework,” by a UK scholar because, how shall we put it, he might need a few lessons in interprofessionalism.

The retraction notice explains it neatly:

Cossu-UCL follow-up: PLOS ONE paper to be corrected

Cossu

We have a follow-up from last week’s story about a University College London (UCL) investigation into the work of Giulio Cossu that found errors but no “deliberate intention to mislead.”UCL said it will not make the full report available:

UCL finds errors in work by biologist Cossu, but no “deliberate intention to mislead”

Cossu

A cell biologist at University College London (UCL) who has had one paper retracted and another corrected has been cleared of misconduct by the university.

The news, first reported by Times Higher Education, comes after a retraction of a paper by Giulio Cossu prompted by pseudonymous whistleblower Clare Francis that we wrote about in January.

Here’s the full text of UCL’s statement on the investigation:

A new record? 27-plus years later, a notice of redundant publication

A 1984 paper in Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B is now subject to a notice of redundant publication because a lot of it had been published in Cell the same year.

Whether 28 years — 27 years and 9 months, to be precise — is any kind of official record is unclear, since we haven’t really kept track of notices of redundant publication. It would, however, beat the record for longest time between publication and retraction, 27 years and one month.

Here’s the notice, which ran in September of last year but just came to our attention:

UK researcher who faked data gets three months in jail

Steven Eaton, a UK scientist who cooked experiments while at the U.S.-based contract research outfit Aptuit, has been given a three-month prison term, making him the first person to serve time under a 1999 British law called the Good Laboratory Practice Regulations, according to the BBC.

As the BBC reported:

Retraction 12 appears for Alirio Melendez, this one for plagiarism

The twelfth of Alirio Melendez’s 20-something retractions has appeared, in Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology.

Along with the retraction notice, the journal runs letters from the paper’s two co-authors. Melendez writes:

Cardiff clears dean of misconduct allegations, but finds former researcher falsified images

A second investigation into work co-authored by Paul Morgan, a dean at Cardiff University, has cleared him of research misconduct, but has found that Rossen Donev, a former researcher at the university — who has already retracted one study — falsified images in four papers.

As we reported last August, Cardiff “initiated its Procedure for Dealing with Allegations of Academic Misconduct in Research” after Science-Fraud.org and pseudonymous whistleblower Clare Francis brought concerns about several studies to the university’s attention. That followed an earlier investigation into work by some of the same authors. Cardiff has now completed its report, whose findings were first reported by the BBC and Times Higher Education.

According to a university release, the panel, led by a former Cardiff circuit judge, found that (quoting here):

Alirio Melendez notches retractions 10 and 11

Former National University of Singapore and University of Liverpool scientist Alirio Melendez has two more of the 20-something retractions suggested by the investigations into his work. Both appear in the Journal of Biological Chemistry.

Here’s the notice for “FcγRI-triggered generation of arachidonic acid and eicosanoids requires iPLA₂ but not cPLA₂ in human monocytic cells:”

Post 982 — in which we find plagiarized bone graft paper that grafted from other papers

The Surgeon has retracted a 2012 article by a group from the U.K. who took text from a previously published article. So, you say? Nu?

Well, we found — through relatively little effort — that the plagiarizees were themselves, shall we say, liberal in their use of material from other sources.

The retracted article was titled “Bone graft substitutes: What are the options?,” and it appeared in August 2012. One of the options, we guess, was to steal text.

According to the retraction notice:

Flu paper duplication earns Expression of Concern

A six year-old review on bird flu that failed to credit some content from another six year-old review of bird flu is now stamped with an Expression of Concern.

Here’s the notice, from Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses: