“Conflicts among the authors” force retraction of Talanta paper

Talanta, a journal serving the analytical chemistry community — we’d love to know how the name came to be — has retracted a 2013 article by a group of Indian researchers over an authorship dispute.

The paper, “Non-enzymatic electrochemical glucose sensor based on silver/silver oxide nano-rods reinforced with multiwall carbon nanotubes,” appeared in January, with the authors listed as Leila Shahriary, Santosh K. Haram and Anjali A. Athawale.

But according to the retraction notice:

Who deserves to be an author on a scientific paper?

Although authorship issues are not the most common reason we see for retractions, they’re one of the most vexing. We’ve seen multiple cases in which papers are retracted because colleagues say authors didn’t have a right to publish data, for example. In other cases, authors who didn’t know about a paper are surprised when it comes out.

So for our most recent column in LabTimes, we decided to look at these situations and try to answer some questions:

Charge of “scientific yellow journalism” has supervisor seeing red, leads to retraction

Last October, Anica Klockars, a neuroscience researcher at Uppsala University in Sweden, and a colleague published a controversial comment in the journal Small GTPases, a Landes Bioscience title.

The title of the letter was meant to provoke: “Scientific yellow journalism.”

As the authors wrote:

Paper — with longest title ever? — retracted for lack of author approval

The journal Inorganica Chimica Acta has retracted a paper it published earlier this year over an authorship dispute involving the lead researcher and his colleagues in France.

The title of the paper — whose bulk alone gave us a headache  — was “Reaction of a bidentate ligands (4,4′-dimethyl 2,2′-bipyridine) with planar-chiral chloro-bridged ruthenium: Synthesis of cis-dicarbonyl[4,4′-dimethyl-2,2′-bipyridine- κO1,κO2]{2-[tricarbonyl(η6-phenylene- κC1)chromium]pyridine-κN}ruthenium hexafluorophosphate” — and it purportedly came from a lab in Beirut.

However, as the retraction notice indicates, that’s not quite so:

De-Toxicology: Authors pull more meeting abstracts, citing journal error

We recently wrote about a group of English scientists who asked Toxicology to de-publish their abstract from a conference proceedings issue. Turns out they were far from alone.

The journal’s December issue has at least five more such removal notices, all for the same problem.

The notices read:

Heart retracts stent-ReoPro paper over data dispute with authors (save one)

We’re a few months late on this one, but Heart, a BMJ title, issued a fascinating retraction notice in August about a meta-analysis on percutaneous coronary intervention (that’s stenting to you and me) after suffering a heart attack, and the drug abciximab, which is used to prevent clotting and additional near-term heart attacks. Abciximab is sold as ReoPro by Eli Lilly.

The article, “Clinical impact of intracoronary abciximab in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: an individual patient-data pooled analysis of randomised studies,” was published last May. But according to the retraction notice, the authors had neglected to include fresh data, already in the literature before their paper went live, that contradicted their overall findings.

Here’s the notice:

Feminist studies journal retracts paper after post-acceptance editing dispute

The journal Feminist Legal Studies has retracted a paper by a controversial Canadian scholar, Sunera Thobani, after the researcher evidently disagreed with post-acceptance edits.

Thobani, of the Centre for Women’s and Gender Studies at the University of British Columbia, became a figure of some international repute for statements in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks that were highly critical of the United States and its response to the assaults and of the West in general: