Group that reused cheese cloth in different experiments up to six retractions – Retraction Watch
The different day, we reported on the retraction this month of a paper that was laid low by reuse of experimental supplies — cheese cloth, to be actual — when contemporary had been required.
At the time, we requested the senior writer, Donghai Wang, of Kansas State University, whether or not some other articles from his group had related issues. Wang’s response was no — however it seems the group already had 5 different retractions in December, and has requested one other.
All are from the identical journal, Bioresource Technology.
These retractions embody the August 2019 paper titled “A study on the association between biomass types and magnesium oxide pretreatment.” According to the discover:
This article has been retracted on the request of the Authors and the Editor-in-Chief.
This article accommodates some flaws in experimental technique/ protocol used. The main situation is that the filtration aperture (cheese cloth) used for stable and liquid separation after biomass pretreatment was not properly managed over the analysis interval. Using used-cheese-cloths with various aperture dimension unintentionally induced a big variation in mass restoration and chemical composition of handled biomass. New cheese cloth ought to be used every time to guarantee reproducibility.
And the September 2019 paper, “Boosting fermentable sugars by integrating magnesium oxide-treated corn stover and corn stover liquor without washing and detoxification,” for the similar motive.
This article has been retracted on the request of the authors and the Editor-in-Chief. The main situation is that this text accommodates some outcomes and discussions which arose on the premise of two retracted papers that had used fallacious methodology. The two retracted papers are:
1. Li. J., W. Li, M. Zhang, D. Wang. 2018. Boosting the fermentable sugar yield and focus of corn stover by magnesium oxide pretreatement for ethanol manufacturing. Bioresource Technology 269 (2018) 400-407; and
2. Li. J., M. Zhang, J. Li, D. Wang. 2018. Corn stover pretreatment by steel oxides for bettering lignin elimination and decreasing sugars degradation and water utilization. Bioresource Technology 263 (2018) 232-241.
We requested Wang in regards to the extra retractions. He advised us:
Initially, somebody discovered lignin elimination calculation in Jun Li’s paper will not be appropriate, then we spent one month to conduct [a] validation check, [and] we discovered that filtration membrane (cheese cloth) is a significant factor [that] influences the mass restoration after which [affects] the lignin elimination calculation. The mass restoration from validation check utilizing eight different used cheese garments ranged from 54.eight% to 60.05%. From this validation check, we realized that new cheese cloth ought to be used every time to guarantee outcomes accuracy and reproducibility.
After [a] validation check, I wrote a report to Dr. Ashok Pandey [the editor-in-chief of Bioresource Technology] indicating 5 papers had [an] situation [with] mass restoration and requested retraction. Dr. Pandey permit us to make [a] brief notice correction on one other two papers, lastly due to that the final two papers referenced retracted papers in a number of locations, it’s tough to make a brief notice to clarify the difficulty, so we gave up on correction and requested retraction and Dr. Pandey agreed, so we’ve 7 [papers] retracted.
Jun Li is my PhD scholar, he’s a self-motivated and hardworking particular person. He didn’t [realize the] “cheese cloth” situation, nor [report it] to me, it’s my mistake that I over trusted Jun and didn’t re-calculate the outcomes, the great factor is that we had a chance to discover out the issue.
Wang mentioned he has requested that the journal pull a seventh paper, titled “Enhancing delignification and subsequent enzymatic hydrolysis of corn stover by MgO-ethanol pretreatment.”
He added that his group is now repeating their experiments utilizing filter paper and hope to republish their findings.
Like Retraction Watch? You could make a tax-deductible contribution to help our work, comply with us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our every day digest. If you discover a retraction that’s not in our database, you possibly can tell us right here. For feedback or suggestions, electronic mail us at firstname.lastname@example.org.