Three years ago, the American Statistical Association (ASA) expressed hope that the world would move to a “post-p-value era.” The statement in which they made that recommendation has been cited more than 1,700 times, and apparently, the organization has decided that era’s time has come. (At least one journal had already banned p values by … Continue reading Time to say goodbye to “statistically significant” and embrace uncertainty, say statisticians
What Caught Our Attention: A tree of life paper has been axed — and based on the information in the retraction notice, we’re wondering how it ever passed peer review. Specifically, the notice states a review of the paper found “concerns regarding the study design, methodology, and interpretation of the data.” Overall, the research “contradict(s) … Continue reading Caught Our Notice: Hey peer reviewers — did you even read this paper??
A BMJ journal has retracted a 2017 paper that made a false claim about the clinical trial in question. The Acupuncture in Medicine paper reported the results of a clinical trial about the impact of acupuncture and Chinese herbal medicine on stroke, gathered from one center. However, in November, the editors of the journal discovered that … Continue reading Authors claim clinical trial data came from one center. It came from three.
A journal is retracting a paper after it discovered researchers gave a child the wrong supplement for more than a year. Rhiannon Bugno, managing editor for Biological Psychiatry, told Retraction Watch the mix-up did not put the patient at risk. However, the mistake was enough for the journal’s editor, John Krystal, of Yale University, to … Continue reading Child took wrong compound for over a year after “communication error”
Posted by biological psychiatry, data issues, drug design, elsevier, freely available, investigator error, methodological problems, miscommunication, psychiatry, spain, wrong reagents
When Alexander Harms arrived at the University of Copenhagen in August 2016, as a postdoc planning to study a type of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, he carried with him a warning from another lab who had recruited him: People said, “If you go there, you have to deal with these weird articles that nobody believes.” … Continue reading Overlooked virus “generated a mess,” infected highly cited Cell, PNAS papers
Posted by cell, denmark retractions, doing the right thing, elsevier, freely available, infectious disease, investigator error, methodological problems, NAS, PNAS, pnas retractions
Researchers from the University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center have retracted a 2015 paper after they discovered their samples had been compromised. Exactly how the samples were compromised, and how and when the researchers found out, remains unclear. Originally published March 30, 2015, in Cancer, “Genome-wide association study identifies common genetic variants associated with […]
Title: Sleep quality and body composition variations in obese male adults after 14 weeks of yoga intervention: A randomized controlled trial What Caught Our Attention: Last year, researchers led by David Allison at the University of Alabama at Birmingham’s School of Public Health called for the retraction of an article linking weight loss and obese female yoga […]
The post Caught Our Notice: “Ironically,” same error in same journal “was noted last year” appeared first on Retraction Watch.
Title: Molecular Characterization and Biological Activity of Interferon-α in Indian Peafowl (Pavo cristatus) What Caught Our Attention: Soon after the paper appeared, the journal was alerted to the fact its findings were at odds with others in the field. When the editor approached the authors, everything fell apart: The authors couldn’t repeat the experiments, and […]
The post Caught Our Notice: Don’t count your chicken (genes) before they’re hatched appeared first on Retraction Watch.
Title: Plasma contributes to the antimicrobial activity of whole blood against Mycobacterium tuberculosis What Caught Our Attention: A big peer review (and perhaps academic mentorship) fail. These researchers used the wrong anticoagulant for their blood samples, leading them to believe that certain blood components were fighting microbes. The authors counted the number of colonies to show […]
The post Caught Our Notice: Dear peer reviewer, please read the methods section. Sincerely, everyone appeared first on Retraction Watch.