last updated by Pluto on 2024-12-07 08:19:29 UTC on behalf of the NeuroFedora SIG.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in WIRED Science on 2024-12-07 07:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in Science News on 2024-12-06 22:06:33 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in Science News on 2024-12-06 20:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in WIRED Science on 2024-12-06 18:52:48 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in Science News on 2024-12-06 18:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in Science News on 2024-12-06 16:00:43 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in WIRED Science on 2024-12-06 15:02:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in Science News on 2024-12-06 14:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in WIRED Science on 2024-12-06 12:30:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in WIRED Science on 2024-12-06 11:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in CoCoSys lab on 2024-12-06 10:34:22 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in CoCoSys lab on 2024-12-06 09:16:25 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in For Better Science on 2024-12-06 06:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
Science has issued expressions of concern for two articles from the lab of Daniel Durocher, a professor of molecular genetics at the University of Toronto.
The notices, and two more editor’s notes on Nature articles, follow PubPeer comments on several of Durocher’s papers pointing out potentially duplicated images, as described by ForBetterScience. Durocher has responded to many of the comments promising to look into the issues.
Besides his academic positions at Toronto and the Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute at Sinai Health, Durocher co-founded Repare Therapeutics, a biotech company with five ongoing clinical trials of potential treatments for cancer.
The two Science articles, “Mitosis inhibits DNA double-strand break repair to guard against telomere fusions” from 2014, and “Orchestration of the DNA-damage response by the RNF8 ubiquitin ligase,” from 2007, together have been cited nearly 1,000 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.
In an email to Retraction Watch, Jovana Drinjakovic, the science communications officer at the Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute at Sinai Health, confirmed the institution is investigating the 2014 paper:
We acknowledge that the journal Science is planning to publish the Editorial Expression of Concern regarding two studies that were published in 2007 and 2014. While the 2007 paper has a figure error that the authors are working to correct, the 2014 paper was noted to contain data irregularities. As soon as the senior author was made aware of the irregularities pertaining to the 2014 study, he promptly notified Sinai Health. This triggered an internal inquiry, in accordance with its policy on addressing research misconduct allegations.
We received Drinjakovic’s email after reaching out to Durocher for comment.
“The senior author is currently in discussions with the journal about the next steps,” Drinjakovic said, referring to Durocher. “It would be inappropriate to comment further on this matter until the internal process has been completed.”
In April 2021, an anonymous user on PubPeer commented on the 2007 paper, identifying “more similar than expected” microscopy images in one figure. Durocher responded the same month, agreeing with the observation and stating he would “search for the original timelapse movie and will correct if needed.”
The expression of concern for the article states:
The authors informed the editors of a duplicate image in Fig. 3D. We are alerting readers to this concern while we work with the authors to determine an appropriate correction to the paper.
Stephen P. Jackson, of the University of Cambridge, in England, and the penultimate author on the paper, has previously retracted articles from Cell, Nature, and Science.
Last month, scientific sleuth Sholto David, who uses the PubPeer handle “Mycosphaerella arachidis,” pointed out potential duplications in six figures of the 2014 Science article. Durocher responded:
Thank you for raising these issues. They are taken seriously. I have alerted my Institute director about the noted irregularities and they will be investigated.
The expression of concern states:
The editors and authors have been made aware of potential data integrity issues in several figures. We are alerting readers to this concern while we work with the institution and the authors to determine an appropriate course of action.
David told Retraction Watch the notice “should just be a retraction.” He called the paper “very muddled” and its data “extensively manipulated.”
Meagan Phelan, the communications director for the Science family of journals, confirmed PubPeer “was among the impetuses” for the notices. She added:
The authors have been swift and thorough to respond to us and to address related issues. We’re seeing more and more authors work quickly and thoughtfully to correct the record in this way, and it continues to encourage us.
On November 21, Nature added editor’s notes to two of Durocher’s papers, “A mechanism for the suppression of homologous recombination in G1 cells,” from 2015, and “53BP1 is a reader of the DNA-damage-induced H2A Lys 15 ubiquitin mark,” from 2013. The articles have been cited nearly 900 times. Both notices state:
Readers are alerted that concerns have been raised regarding the reliability of data presented in this article. Further editorial action will be taken if appropriate once the investigation into the concerns is complete and all parties have been given an opportunity to respond in full.
David also in November commented on the Nature studies with questions about the data. Durocher and the first author of one of the articles responded, promising to look into the questions.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.
in Retraction watch on 2024-12-05 19:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in Science News on 2024-12-05 18:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in Science News on 2024-12-05 16:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in Science News on 2024-12-05 14:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in Science News on 2024-12-05 10:53:36 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in WIRED Science on 2024-12-05 09:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in Science News on 2024-12-04 19:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in Science News on 2024-12-04 15:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in Science News on 2024-12-04 13:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in WIRED Science on 2024-12-04 10:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in WIRED Science on 2024-12-04 09:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in Science News on 2024-12-04 00:01:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in WIRED Science on 2024-12-03 23:38:58 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
International Wound Journal, a Wiley title, has retracted 27 papers since June with notices mentioning “manipulated” or “compromised” peer review.
“A comprehensive investigation examining manipulated peer review in this journal is in progress,” a Wiley spokesperson told Retraction Watch. The publisher anticipates retracting more articles as the investigation continues.
The first retraction of the batch, of the November 2023 article “Analysis of the Association Between Serum Levels of 25(OH)D, Retinol Binding Protein, and Cyclooxygenase-2 and the Disease Severity in Patients with Diabetic Foot Ulcers,” appeared June 14. The notice stated Wiley and the journal’s editor in chief “concluded that the peer review process of this article was manipulated” following an investigation by the publisher.
The authors “did not respond to the notice of retraction,” according to the notice. Corresponding author Liwei Bai of The First Affiliated Hospital of Xinxiang Medical University in Weihui, China, did not immediately respond to our request for comment.
Although the Wiley spokesperson told us the publisher’s investigation began “through our standard processes and channels prior to the receipt of inquiries from external parties,” 20 of the retractions in the batch credited “a third party.” These notices stated:
It came to the publisher’s attention from a third party that a number of articles shared concerning similarities in format and structure. Following an investigation by the publisher, the retraction has been agreed on as the peer review and publishing process for this article were found to be manipulated
Five papers pulled November 12 have different notices, which stated the articles were accepted “solely on the basis of a compromised peer review process,” and therefore must be retracted.
International Wound Journal recently became open access, according to a September 2023 editorial marking the journal’s 20th birthday. The journal had increased its number of editions from eight to 10 in 2023, and would add two more in 2024, the editors wrote, “as our submission volumes have increased exponentially.” The editors also shared plans to publish “several ‘special’ editions to supplement our annual editions.”
In an August editorial, the editors acknowledged some of the increase in submissions the journal had seen “is related to ‘papermill’ type activity.” They continued:
This has challenged our submission and review process. To manage this, we are implementing significant back-end processes to identify and reject such content. We are also creating the largest single editorial board for any wound care journal, to strengthen our review process to enhance its effectiveness. This has become necessary to ensure the continued quality of our journal, especially considering the threat that “papermill type” activity may have on our overall subject area. This is a global challenge to the world of academic and clinical research. It is something that the IWJ does not take lightly and we are working diligently in playing our part to minimize its impact in the world of wound care.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.
in Retraction watch on 2024-12-03 20:45:47 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in Science News on 2024-12-03 16:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in Science News on 2024-12-03 14:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in Science News on 2024-12-03 10:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in For Better Science on 2024-12-03 06:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
Crossref, a nonprofit focused on metadata of scholarly publications, has suspended the membership of a company linked to websites which copied the appearance of journals belonging to Elsevier and Springer Nature, among others from major publishers, Retraction Watch has learned.
The move follows Anna Abalkina’s reporting on Retraction Watch about the activities of Springer Global Publications, which had used its membership in Crossref to assign Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) to papers in 13 journals with similar names to those established by legitimate publishers. The DOIs linked to papers on webpages mimicking the appearance of the original journals.
Springer Global Publications did not immediately respond to our request for comment on the suspension of its Crossref membership. The company previously told us it did not “create, review, or manage the content associated with the identifiers we issue,” and did not publish any journals.
The website of the company has also been suspended by its hosting provider, and is no longer available online.
Ginny Hendricks of Crossref told us the organization had suspended Springer Global Publications for “misrepresenting information on their application form,” because the company told us they don’t publish the journals they provide DOIs for. “Sometimes these things take months, but this was clear cut,” Hendricks said.
[Editor’s note: Crossref acquired the Retraction Watch Database last year and funds our efforts to maintain and update the repository.]
According to Crossref’s policies on suspending or revoking membership, the executive committee of the nonprofit’s board must review and ratify the decision to revoke membership. The board’s next meeting will likely take place in January, Hendricks said, but in the meantime Springer Global Publications “can’t access the system and are already suspended from membership.”
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.
in Retraction watch on 2024-12-03 04:22:33 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
In this review, Rebecca Pope discusses the International Booker Prize winning novel, 'Time Shelter'. Georgi Gospodinov discusses transporting patients with Alzheimer's Disease back in time in a 'clinic for the past', as a promising treatment. But is this always a good idea?...
Bulgarian author, Georgi Gospodinov, brings us his third novel, ‘Time Shelter’, which brings us into the world of Alzheimer’s Disease through the eyes of a fictional narrator, while discussing the utility of immersive therapies.
‘Time Shelter’ was a fascinating read. Having completed a Neuroscience MSci degree, I had scientific knowledge of Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) already, but this text was based on the patient experience - a new angle for me as a preclinical researcher. Fortunately, I have never had someone close to me develop AD, so have not personally experienced how awful it is for a friend or family member.
In the book, Gospodinov delves into the idea of immersive therapies, alongside a clinician, Gaustine, creating floors of a clinic focused on a specific year, or decade, of times past. By utilising seemingly fictional patient stories - their backgrounds, the time they are living in, their changing relationships, their response to the immersion - Gospodinov discusses his interactions with them and the emotions that are raised both for them, as well as within him, in-depth during every observation. In fact, the clinic is so successful that individuals with no memory loss are also keen to experience the past!
It is difficult to know how each person will experience their decline and loss of memory after an Alzheimer’s diagnosis, or in which time they will be ‘living’ for the foreseeable future. Will they be ‘reliving’ a traumatic time of their life, or will it be a place of comfort? How can we support them and make them comfortable? This is yet another example of why personalised therapies are so important.
We are collections of our memories - if they are unwillingly stripped from us, who remains?
Whilst creating these realistic and dystopian, frozen moments in time, Gospodinov highlighted the attention to detail that is required, including about things that in the moment do not seem particularly important (advertisements, trending colours, widespread opinions, major news stories, popular children’s toys). It gave me an appreciation for the things immediately around me as I was sitting reading the book in the park - the fashion, the language, the 2024 obsession with running!
We are collections of our memories - if they are unwillingly stripped from us, who remains? Do we instead become a collection of the memories that other people possess of us? It is incredible that something, be it a scent or a piece of music, can suddenly bring people back to themselves, reanimating them (and sometimes giving seemingly non-verbal people the power of speech). Knowing what these prompts are is the major difficulty, and a clinician must spend ample amounts of time with the patient or their friends and family to gather personal information to try to guess at these things. Unfortunately, it seems that in these cases, the brain is effectively locking away our memories and forgetting to label the key…
Is it right to have somebody living in another time with the ‘real’ world passing them by outside?
The novel also touches on the ethics of the treatments; is it right to have somebody living in another time with the ‘real’ world passing them by outside? Gospodinov also raises the question: is it always a good idea to feed their illusion? The example he uses is of a lady who has returned to living in a time of perpetual fear, as a prisoner of Auschwitz. Certainly, there are very real moral questions to be asked here, to be considered on a case by case basis. The latter half of the book focused on the dystopian introduction of a political voting system for European countries to select which decade they would like to live in. Gospodinov went into intricate detail about the politics, music, affluence, and other factors of each country in the decades chosen. This was an intriguing and terrifying concept, but was also a bit dry to read.
With our ageing society, AD is becoming more prevalent, and the likelihood that we will know someone affected by the disease is ever increasing. In 2019, more than 55.2 million people were experiencing dementia in old age and this number is predicted to increase to 78 million by 2030 (1). It is becoming more and more urgent to develop therapies that can provide immediate comfort for patients, with the long-term goal of developing preventative treatments. I think that immersive experiences would be a relief for people with AD who are distressed and confused, largely stuck in the past. The isolation and frustration that patients must feel to not be understood and to be alone in their experience is truly devastating and difficult for those around them.
Overall, ‘Time Shelter’ was an interesting read, with its title being a clever nod to ‘bomb shelter’, implying that the immersive therapies are providing a literal shelter from time. It
prompts the reader to reflect about the best, personalised care for people with AD and raises moral questions surrounding treatment.
Reference:
1 - Yi, X., Liu, Z., Li, H. et al. Immersive experiences in museums for elderly with cognitive disorders: a user-centered design approach. Sci Rep 14, 1971 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-51929-4
This post was written by Rebecca Pope and edited by Julia Dabrowska, with graphics produced by Lilly Green. If you enjoyed this article, be the first to be notified about new posts by signing up to become a WiNUK member (top right of this page)! Interested in writing for WiNUK yourself? Contact us through the blog page and the editors will be in touch.
in Women in Neuroscience UK on 2024-12-02 18:30:09 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in Science News on 2024-12-02 18:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in Science News on 2024-12-02 16:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in Science News on 2024-12-02 13:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in WIRED Science on 2024-12-02 11:30:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in WIRED Science on 2024-12-02 10:30:25 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in WIRED Science on 2024-12-02 09:30:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in WIRED Science on 2024-12-01 11:30:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in WIRED Science on 2024-12-01 09:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in WIRED Science on 2024-12-01 07:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in Open Access Tracking Project: news on 2024-12-01 02:16:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in Science News on 2024-11-30 12:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in WIRED Science on 2024-11-30 12:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
Giving Tuesday is coming up. Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work?
The week at Retraction Watch featured:
Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 450. There are more than 50,000 retractions in The Retraction Watch Database — which is now part of Crossref. The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker now contains more than 300 titles. And have you seen our leaderboard of authors with the most retractions lately — or our list of top 10 most highly cited retracted papers? What about The Retraction Watch Mass Resignations List — or our list of nearly 100 papers with evidence they were written by ChatGPT?
Here’s what was happening elsewhere (some of these items may be paywalled, metered access, or require free registration to read):
Upcoming Testimony
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.
in Retraction watch on 2024-11-30 11:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in WIRED Science on 2024-11-30 09:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in WIRED Science on 2024-11-29 09:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in For Better Science on 2024-11-29 06:00:00 UTC.
- Wallabag.it! - Save to Instapaper - Save to Pocket -
in WIRED Science on 2024-11-28 12:30:00 UTC.