Category Archives: belgium
Radical geographer doubles up on sexuality paper, earns retraction
Radical geography journal Antipode has retracted a paper on sexuality and geography after discovering that author Martin Zebracki published an almost identical article in a Dutch magazine on which he served as a member of the editorial board. Here’s the retraction notice for “Right to Space: Moving Towards Sexual Citizenship Beyond the Nation State”: The above article, published online on […]
Posted by in Antipode, belgium, duplication retractions, freely available, geography, Netherlands
Infant formula paper smells like salami, retracted
Seminars in Perinatology has retracted a 2002 paper by a group of authors in France and Belgium who’d used a previously published article (their own) as a template for the benighted work.
The article, “Nitrogen utilization and bone mineralization in very low birth weight infants fed partially hydrolyzed preterm formula,” by Jean-Charles Picaud and colleagues, appeared in December 2002. But it was based largely on this May 2001 paper in the Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, titled “Nutritional Efficacy of Preterm Formula With a Partially Hydrolyzed Protein Source: A Randomized Pilot Study.”
According to the retraction notice:
This article has been retracted at the request of the Editors-in-Chief.
In this article, the authors have replicated large portions of their prior paper published in J. Pediatr. Gastroenterol. Nutr., 32 (2001) 555–561, http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005176-200105000-00012.
When submitting a paper for publication the authors are required to present work that is original and has not appeared in a publication elsewhere. Re-use of any data should be appropriately cited. The scientific community takes a strong view on this matter and apologies are offered to readers of the journal for the inconvenience.
The abstracts of the two papers look pretty similar — not surprising given that the bone mineral density analysis was an obvious extension of the initial analysis, which looked at calcium absorption.
From the earlier article, which has been cited 18 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge:
Background: Decreased nitrogen levels, calcium intestinal absorption rates, and plasma amino acid imbalances were reported for preterm infants who were fed partially hydrolyzed preterm formulas. In this pilot study, we evaluated a new formula with modified nitrogen and calcium sources.
Methods: During their second week of life, 16 preterm infants were randomly assigned to one of two groups: 9 were fed the new partially hydrolyzed formula and 7 were fed a conventional formula. Nutrient balance was performed at the end of the first month of life. Amino acid concentrations and anthropometric parameters were measured at theoretical term.
Results: Birth weight and gestational age (mean ± SD) were similar in the two groups (28.9 ± 7.0 weeks and 1183 ± 242 g vs. 27.7 ± 1.0 weeks and 1139 ± 162 g). Median nitrogen absorption rates (85% vs. 89%;P = 0.03) and biological values (59% vs. 69%;P = 0.13) were lower for infants who were fed the new formula than for those fed the conventional formula. After correction for difference in nitrogen intake, there was no significant difference in nitrogen retained between the two groups (P = 0.11). Plasma amino acid concentrations were also similar in the two groups. Median calcium absorption tended to be higher in the new-formula group than in the conventional-formula group (54% vs. 45%, P = 0.19). At theoretical term, infants fed the conventional formula were heavier than infants fed the new formula (3559 ± 362 g vs. 3193 ± 384 g, P = 0.04).
Conclusions: Because nitrogen content is 10% higher in hydrolyzed-protein formula than in entire-protein formula, appropriate nitrogen retention, plasma amino acid profile, and mineral use can be achieved with the new partially hydrolyzed formula. Further studies with larger groups are needed to evaluate the effect on growth.
And from the retracted paper, which has been cited twice:
Partially hydrolyzed formulas have been proposed for term and preterm infants, but decreased nitrogen and calcium intestinal absorption rates, together with plasma amino acid imbalances have been reported in preterm infants. We evaluated a new formula with modified nitrogen and calcium sources (glycerophosphate). During their second week of life, 16 preterm infants were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: 9 were fed the new partially hydrolyzed formula and 7 a conventional formula. A nutrient balance was performed at the end of the first month of life. Amino acid concentrations and whole-body mineralization were measured at the end of study period (theoretical term). Birth weight and gestational age (mean +/- SD) were similar in the 2 groups (28.9 +/- 7.0 wks and 1,183 +/- 242 g v 27.7 +/- 1.0 wks and 1,139 +/- 162 g). Median nitrogen absorption rate (85% v 89%; P = .03) was lower in infants fed the new formula than in those fed the conventional one. After correction for difference in nitrogen intake, there was no significant difference in N retained between the 2 groups (P = .11). Plasma amino acid concentrations were also similar in the 2 groups. At theoretical term, median bone mineral content was not significantly different between the 2 groups (50 g/kg v 55 g/kg; P = .17) and it was close to the reference values obtained in term neonates just after birth. As long as nitrogen content is 10% higher in protein hydrolyzed formula than in entire protein formula, appropriate nitrogen retention, plasma amino acid profile can be achieved with the new partially hydrolyzed formula. In both groups, bone mineralization at theoretical term was close to the mineralization observed term neonates just after birth.
Doing the right thing: Psychology researchers retract after realizing data “were not analyzed properly”
Amid an ongoing investigation, a group of psychology researchers at the University of Leuven (KU Leuven) in Belgium have taken a painful decision to retract a paper now that they’ve realized there were serious problems with one aspect of the work.
Here’s the notice for “The Emergence of Orthographic Word Representations in the Brain: Evaluating a Neural Shape-Based Framework Using fMRI and the HMAX Model,” by Wouter Braet, Jonas Kubilius, Johan Wagemans, and Hans P. Op de Beeck:
The authors retract this publication. Because of human errors by the first/corresponding author, the fMRI data reported in this retracted paper were not analyzed properly. The errors were detected when other lab members reanalyzed the data for another purpose. At that point, it turned out that the original data analyses by the first author included several operations which are hard to replicate and which do not fit fully with the methods as agreed upon with the co-authors and as described in the paper. Because of this we no longer consider these results trustworthy.
The computational work in the manuscript, which was the sole contribution of co-author, J. Kubilius, is not compromised per se, but we decided for a full retraction given the weight of the fMRI data in this publication.
The first author regrets the errors and takes responsibility for them, and he cooperated fully with the investigation once the initial doubts had surfaced. All authors of the original publication agree with this retraction.
The first author, Wouter Braet, left KU Leuven in October 2012 for the University of Kaiserslautern in Germany. He tells us he is there “on a fixed-term contract that is due to end in a few months.”
Except for the fact that the notice is behind a paywall — which is the publisher’s fault, not the authors’ — this would seem to be a model retraction. It’s specific, detailed, and is a clear attempt to correct the literature, even at a personal cost.
As the senior author, Hans Op de Beeck, tells us:
As PI I have made the decision to retract once an internal lab investigation provided me with a full understanding of what had gone wrong and why. All authors support this decision, the author who made the errors fully collaborated with the investigation, and thus there was no reason to wait for lawyers or administrative reports (which can give very long delays and related frustration, as you know very well). The decision to retract is also a conservative decision, in the sense that one could wonder whether it would have been possible to save parts of the paper through a correction, but we preferred to follow a high standard in this matter.
Op de Beeck also reported the issue to a board for scientific integrity at KU Leuven, which prompted an institutional investigation. It’s not clear when that will be completed, and Op de Beeck decided to retract in the meantime, which seems like the right thing to do. We hope the university will release the report when their investigation is complete, and clear up any remaining questions — which will also be the right thing to do.
One in twelve Belgian medical scientists admits having “made up and/or massaged data”: Survey
A recently released survey of Belgian scientists suggests that Flemish medical researchers admit to having made up or massaged data more often than their counterparts around their world.
The survey, by the Dutch science magazine Eos with the help of Joeri Tijdink, of VU University Medical Center in Amsterdam, and the Pascal Decroos Fund for Investigative Journalism, found that
Of the 315 participating scientists, four (1.3%) admit to having made up data at least once in the last three years. If what they say is true, this probably concerns fraud that is still undiscovered. 23 respondents (7.3%) admit to having selectively removed data or results to make research match a hypothesis, so-called ‘data massaging’. Overall, about 8% of the Flemish medical scientists admits to recently having made up and/or massaged data.
Eos compares those figures to those in a meta-analysis by Daniele Fanelli that we often quote, and finds that the Flanders survey paints a worse picture than other studies. Fanelli’s study found that about 2% of scientists in a number of disciplines around the world admitted to faking or massaging data, and that
an average of 14% of the respondents had noticed made up or manipulated data in colleagues’ research. Here, too, Flemish figures are much higher: 47% has witnessed such practices in their direct surroundings or heard about them firsthand.
The survey also tried to pinpoint the reasons for fraud, and pressure to publish came out on top. Read the whole piece here.
Update, 10:30 a.m. Eastern, 3/26/13: Headline corrected from “one in eight” to “one in 12,” reflecting 8%. Apologies for the error.
Posted by in belgium, studies about retractions
Authors retract two papers on Remicade following legal battles
A group of Belgian researchers has retracted two decade-old papers in Arthritis & Rheumatism following an investigation and court case.
The papers involved the use of the drug infliximab — sold by Johnson & Johnson as Remicade — to treat Sjögren’s syndrome, an auto-immune condition marked by the destruction of exocrine glands that secrete saliva and tears.
Infliximab is not approved for Sjögren’s. Although the two now-retracted studies suggested that it might be helpful, subsequent data did not support those findings.
Neither, apparently, did the studies themselves. Here’s the retraction notice (it’s a PDF):
Notice of Retraction of Two Articles (“Infliximab in patients with primary Sjögren’s syndrome: a pilot study” and “Infliximab in patients with primary Sjögren’s syndrome: one-year followup”)
Two articles from Arthritis & Rheumatism, “Infliximab in patients with primary Sjögren’s syndrome: a pilot study” by Steinfeld SD, Demols P, Salmon I, Kiss R, and Appelboom T (published online on October 12, 2001) and “Infliximab in patients with primary Sjögren’s syndrome: one-year followup” by Steinfeld SD, Demols P, and Appelboom T (published online on December 12, 2002) in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) have been retracted by agreement between the authors, the American College of Rheumatology, the journal Editor-in-Chief, and Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
In these articles we reported on an open-label study that appeared to demonstrate that infliximab treatment was effective in patients with primary Sjögren’s syndrome. We regretfully report that some methodologic errors in the treatment of the data were discovered. In fact, the results of the study did not demonstrate an effect of infliximab in Sjögren’s syndrome. Consequently, the results reported in these articles should be disregarded.
The 2001 paper has been cited 104 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge, while the 2002 paper has been cited 47.
The first author of the articles was Serge D. Steinfeld, of Erasme University Hospital. He also was a paid consultant to Schering-Plough, since swallowed up by Merck, which markets Remicade in some parts of the world.
We have tried to reach Steinfeld, with no success so far.
Meanwhile, we were curious why it has taken more than 10 years for the A&R to retract these two studies. We asked Joan Bathon, the journal’s editor. Here’s her reply:
[I]t was brought to our journal’s attention 4-5 years ago but we were waiting for investigative and then legal proceedings in the investigator’s home country to be concluded.
Apparently, a lawsuit filed in Belgium claimed there were fraudulent data in the mix, but the hospital charts required to figure out what had gone on had been destroyed by a third uninterested party as part of normal housecleaning, according to previous A&R editor Michael Lockshin.
We were thus faced with competing arguments that we could not independently resolve. We therefore deferred the editorial decision until the court case concluded. There was no decision by the time my editorship ended.
The court case was dropped by mutual agreement, Bathon said, and Erasme ruled on the fraud, although we don’t know the outcome of that investigation. The authors retracted the studies themselves.
We emailed the ethics unit at Erasme for comment and will update this post if we learn more.
Facebook study retracted after authors request substantial changes
The journal Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking is retracting a paper about Facebook.
“Bridging the Gap on Facebook: Assessing Intergroup Contact and Its Effects for Intergroup Relations,” is by Sandy Schumann of the Free University of Brussels. The notice says only:
This article has been officially retracted from the Journal.
We asked journal editor Brenda K. Wiederhold for more information about the retraction, and she responded:
The Schumann paper, Bridging the Gap on Facebook, was originally published in our August 2012 issue, volume 15, number 8.
After publication, Dr. Schumann requested that additional changes be made to the article. After a thorough investigation, it was determined that the changes that were requested would substantially alter the submitted and published paper which had been put through rigorous peer-review and was accepted in that form.
The authors were invited to resubmit a new version of the article to go through the peer-review process, which they have accepted, and the new manuscript is undergoing peer review. The new submission is not guaranteed publication.
CyberPsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking Journal is dedicated to the highest ethical standards of scientific publishing and does not tolerate any improprieties.
