Retraction Watch

Misconduct case dropped against AI expert after claims of AI use in recent book

Sweden’s national committee on research misconduct has dismissed a case against an expert in the social ramifications of artificial intelligence following allegations her recent book contained hallucinated references and other signs of AI use.

The author, Virginia Dignum, a professor in responsible AI at Umeå University, denied references in her book The AI Paradox were fabricated and said she made “ordinary editing mistakes.”

Frank Drewes, head of the computing science department at Umeå University, told Retraction Watch the institution received a report containing the allegations from an anonymous individual on July 6 and referred the case to the National Board for Assessment of Research Misconduct (NPOF) in Uppsala, in accordance with Swedish regulation.

Weekend reads: An expression of concern for Nobel Prize winner; DOJ official queried journals on ‘partisan’ views; AI research’s ‘synthetic validity’ problem

If your week flew by — we know ours did — catch up here with what you might have missed.

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

Diabetes association turmoil roils journal as group tries to thwart boycott
CEO of AI company loses paper on cognitive impact of generative AI
Lawsuit over retraction of abortion pill papers heads toward arbitration decision
Lancet union declares first-ever strike over staff wages
Paper mill studies get cited by clinical guidelines, policy docs and more, analysis finds

In case you missed the news, the Hijacked Journal Checker now has more than 450 entries. The Retraction Watch Database has over 67,000 retractions. Our list of COVID-19 retractions is approaching 700, and our mass resignations list has more than 50 entries. We keep tabs on all this and more. If you value this work, please consider showing your support with a tax-deductible donation. Every dollar counts.

I Support Retraction Watch

Here’s what was happening elsewhere (some of these items may be paywalled, metered access, or require free registration to read):

Paper mill studies get cited by clinical guidelines, policy docs and more, analysis finds

Studies produced by a suspected paper mill are frequently cited in patents, clinical guidelines and policy documents, according to a new analysis.

The work, posted on arXiv on August 31, examined the fate of nearly 2,000 academic papers with one common factor: At least one coauthor lists the Pharmakon Neuroscience Network (PNN) as an institutional affiliation.

But there’s one problem: the PNN is not a real network of scientists. Instead, it’s an authorship-for-sale scheme, as Retraction Watch reported in 2022.

Lancet union declares first-ever strike over staff wages

Union members at The Lancet and its affiliated journals will go on strike Sept. 22 for one day with further action planned for the following week, after pay negotiations with parent publisher Elsevier fell apart, The Lancet’s union announced today.

The strike is the first in The Lancet’s 200-year history. Elsevier was ordered to recognize the union, a chapter of the National Union of Journalists (NUJ), in September 2025, and their collective bargaining agreement was finalized in February. As part of the action the union, which represents 110 employees in various roles across several of The Lancet’s 30 journals, is also calling on members to refuse to work hours outside their contracted amount.

Negotiations on pay and support for workers began in March when the union asked for a 7.5% pay raise in the first year. According to an open letter from the union, workers’ pay had failed to keep up with inflation, leaving them “substantially worse off than they were five years ago despite their growing expertise and responsibilities.”

Lawsuit over retraction of abortion pill papers heads toward arbitration decision

A legal challenge by authors over three retracted articles about mifepristone is set for an arbitration conference this month as nationwide debate over the abortion pill heats up at the appellate level.

Ten researchers sued Sage in 2024 after the publisher retracted three of their papers about the purported dangers of mifepristone, a medication that ends early pregnancy. The authors alleged the company “applied inconsistent retraction standards” to their work based on Sage’s perception of their “pro-life affiliations,” in violation of California’s anti-discrimination law, according to their complaint.

The authors asked the Superior Court of California, County of Ventura to compel Sage into arbitration, as required by publishing agreements the researchers signed with the company. Arbitration is an alternative pathway for resolving disputes in which an arbitrator hears the parties’ arguments and issues a decision outside of the traditional court process.

Diabetes association turmoil roils journal as group tries to thwart boycott

A banner message on the *Diabetes Care* website tells visitors they “continue to actively accept and appropriately review all new and previously submitted manuscripts,” which contradicts a statement the journal’s editors posted last week announcing a boycott of ADA activities, including manuscript review.

Tensions between the American Diabetes Association and several editors of its flagship journal — who have boycotted the group over its handling of a protest at the association’s June conference — have again boiled over, this time on the website of the journal.

Steven Kahn, editor-in-chief of Diabetes Care and professor of medicine at the University of Washington, was one of five researchers ejected from the association’s June meeting in New Orleans for distributing copies of a Diabetes Care editorial on funding cuts outside the hall where National Institutes of Health director Jay Bhattacharya was scheduled to speak.

On Sept. 1, ADA announced the results of an independent review, which concluded the five attendees were removed because their actions violated the conference’s code of conduct, not because of the nature of the material they were distributing.

CEO of AI company loses paper on cognitive impact of generative AI

A psychology journal has retracted a paper on how using generative AI can affect confidence in work tasks after its sole author refused to share data with the editors.

The April paper, published in Technology, Mind, and Behavior, which is published by the American Psychological Association (APA), purported to describe the results of a survey of 1,923 adults recruited online to perform AI-assisted tasks. The paper was featured in an APA press release and articles in TIME and Futurism.

As we wrote in June, experts in the field began flagging issues with the paper’s data on PubPeer shortly after it was published. Sandra Grinschgl, who studies human-technology interaction at the University of Bern in Switzerland, was the first to do so, and later enlisted the help of colleagues Ian Hussey and Malte Elson. Their concerns included inconsistencies in graphs and results, study design, “erroneous” references and a lack of ethics approval.

Weekend reads: The afterlife of retracted articles; ADA denies it censored opinions; a ‘twisted phantasmagory’ of ghostwriting

If your week flew by — we know ours did — catch up here with what you might have missed.

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

Editors of higher education journal coauthor editorial with fake references
Researchers appeal misconduct finding over studies of trans youth
PeerJ retracts study that secretly observed tourists’ reactions to snakes
Editors of French journal on corporate responsibility resign after ownership transfer

I Support Retraction Watch

Here’s what was happening elsewhere (some of these items may be paywalled, metered access, or require free registration to read):

Editors of French journal on corporate responsibility resign after ownership transfer

All 15 editors at a French journal have resigned after it was acquired by an editing service and publisher based in China.

Revue de l’Organisation Responsable, or Responsible Organization Review (ROR), publishes articles related to “critical reflection on developments in today’s capitalism,” according to its website. Previously published by Editions ESKA, the journal was founded in 2006 and is supported by the Réseau International de Recherche sur les Organisations et le Développement Durable (RIODD), a social science association. It is indexed in SCImago and Scopus, but not in Clarivate’s Web of Science.

In a letter posted to the journal’s LinkedIn page on September 4, the editors resigned immediately from their duties “with great indignation and emotion.” They said the editorial board was informed at the end of August ESKA had sold publishing and distribution rights to the editing service CNBesting Inc.

PeerJ retracts study that secretly observed tourists’ reactions to snakes

For a study published in PeerJ, a researcher placed plastic snakes (left panel) and viper carcasses on hiking paths (right) to gauge people’s reactions. The journal retracted the paper in August for ethics approval concerns.
*A.V. Dyugmedzhiev/PeerJ 2026*

The journal PeerJ has retracted a study that attempted to capture tourists’ “authentic responses” to venomous snakes by putting plastic models and dead vipers around popular hiking destinations and secretly watching how people reacted to the encounters.

Study author Angel Valentinov Dyugmedzhiev of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences assessed their reactions from a few meters away and never interacted with any of the participants so as to avoid “direct interference in the experimental setup,” he wrote in the paper, published June 23.

When tourists discussed the snakes among themselves, he recorded whether they correctly identified the species and whether they realized the viper was either dead or a model. The study found most tourists didn’t spot the vipers, and only a small number of them showed strong fear toward them.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: