French journal retracts nanomedicine paper for ethics violations, more

The French journal Biologie Aujourd’hui — Biology Today — has retracted an article it published earlier this year after learning of ethics violations,  authorship issues with the paper and a problematic image.

The article, titled “Utilisation de dendrimères pour une nanomédecine innovatrice,” or “Using dendrimers for an innovative nanomedicine,” was written by Jean Pierre Majoral of the Laboratoire de Chimie de Coordination in Toulouse. (We haven’t been able to get our virtual hands on the paper yet.)

According to the retraction notice, which in fact says “withdrawal notice“: 

Amid a legal dispute, journal downgrades a retraction to an expression of concern

The journal Cell Cycle is expressing a “note” of concern about a 2012 paper by a former researcher at the University of Minnesota, who has claimed that her mentor at the institution was violating her copyright. It turns out the journal had briefly retracted the paper, but reversed itself with the expression of concern — a curious about-face that, in our experience, often indicates the work of lawyers.

That seems to be the case here, too.

The article, “Chalcone-based small-molecule inhibitors attenuate malignant phenotype via targeting deubiquitinating enzymes,” was already the subject of an erratum, available here:

Author break prompts retraction of bone protein paper

The European Journal of Pharmacology has — against its will, it would seem — retracted a 2012 paper by a group of Chinese heart researchers embroiled in a what appears to be a rather messy authorship dispute.

The article, “The effect of alendronate on the expression of osteopontin and osteoprotegerin in calcified aortic tissue of the rat,”  came from the Institute of Cardiovascular Disease at Tongji Hospital, part of of Huazhong University of Science and Technology.

As the retraction notice states:

Tenth retraction appears for Jesús Lemus, this one in PLOS ONE

Just two days ago, we covered the ninth retraction for Jesús Lemus, “the veterinary researcher whose work colleagues have had trouble verifying, including being unable to confirm the identity of one of his co-authors.” And already another of his retractions has appeared in one of our daily alerts.

This one appears in PLOS ONE, for “Infectious Offspring: How Birds Acquire and Transmit an Avian Polyomavirus in the Wild:”

Paper on partially entangled states retracted for partially entangling authors

A paper on partially entangled states seems to have fallen victim to a confusing entanglement of authors and studies.

Here’s the notice for the paper, “Optimal quantum communication using multiparticle partially entangled states,” by Atul Kumar, Satyabrata Adhikari, Subhashish Banerjee, and Sovik Roy:

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:

How does a paper get published without the alleged corresponding author knowing?

The Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering ran a retraction yesterday that’s left us scratching our heads.

The paper, “Wettability-gradient-driven micropump for transporting discrete liquid drops,” was published on February 8 of this year.  For a paper published in a journal run by the Institute of Physics, the retraction notice reads like a mix of Hindenburg (read: disaster) and Heisenberg (read: uncertainty):

One-too-many authors scuttles paper on mouse metabolism

Regulatory Peptides is retracting a 2010 paper by a group of five authors in China and one in Texas — and the presence of that last one was the problem.

The article, “Erythropoietin as a possible mechanism for the effects of intermittent hypoxia on bodyweight, serum glucose and leptin in mice,” had as its last (dare we say, senior) author Susan T. Howard, a mycobacterium expert at the University of Texas Health Science Center in Tyler. Trouble was, Howard disavowed any role in the paper.

According to the retraction notice:

“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: