A proposito dell’articolo uscito nel 2011 su PLoS One, “Lycopene inhibits NF-kB-mediated IL-8 expression and changes redox and PPAR signalling in cigarette smoke-stimulated macrophages”, una delle tante pubblicazioni dette “i falsi del pomodoro” sui presunti effetti anti-tumorale del licopene, scoperti dal gruppo di Paola Palozza, Clare Francis scrive:
First there was an horrendous correction. Now a retraction:
The PLOS ONE editors retract this publication according to the recommendation received from the Catholic University, Rome.
Upon the publication of the Correction on the article, the PLOS ONE editors contacted the Catholic University to note the concerns identified in relation to the presentation of Western blot results from this study. The Catholic University established an investigation commission which has confirmed that several of the figures were inappropriately assembled by the corresponding author Dr. Paola Palozza and advised the retraction of the article.
In line with the institution’s recommendation, PLOS ONE retracts this publication.
Segnalo al collega Stefano Romita che, a quanto ne so, l’Università Cattolica di Roma è la prima in Italia ad aver raccomandato una ritrattazione.
Le ricerche e gli esperimenti clinici di P. Palozza erano finanziati dall’AIRC e dalla Commissione Europea, alla quale l’università aveva già dovuto rimborsare 400 mila euro per precedenti falsificazioni.
***
L’editore Sage ha scoperto un “giro di peer-review e citazioni vicendevoli” riguardanti almeno 60 articoli pubblicati sul e ora ritrattati dal Journal of Vibration and Control.
While investigating the JVC papers submitted and reviewed by Peter Chen, it was discovered that the author had created various aliases on SAGE Track, providing different email addresses to set up more than one account. Consequently, SAGE scrutinised further the co-authors of and reviewers selected for Peter Chen’s papers, these names appeared to form part of a peer review ring. The investigation also revealed that on at least one occasion, the author Peter Chen reviewed his own paper under one of the aliases he had created.
Dettagli dai colleghi di Retraction Watch.