‘Squared blunder’: Google engineer withdraws preprint after getting called out for using AI

Two of the phrases in the paper identified as AI-generated

An expert in AI at Google has admitted he used the technology to help write a preprint manuscript that commenters on PubPeer found to contain a slew of AI-generated phrases like “squared blunder” and “info picture.” 

The paper, “Leveraging GANs For Active Appearance Models Optimized Model Fitting,” appeared on arXiv.org in January but was withdrawn April 7. The author, Anurag Awasthi, is an engineering lead in AI infrastructure at Google. In a PubPeer comment, he described the paper as a “personal learning exercise.” 

In March 2025, sleuth Guillaume Cabanac, creator of the Problematic Paper Screener, pointed out in a PubPeer comment the paper included several tortured phrases. These phrases indicate AI use and occur when large language models try to find synonyms for common phrases. In Awasthi’s paper, “linear regression” became “straight relapse,” and “error rate” became “blunder rate,” among others. 

Continue reading ‘Squared blunder’: Google engineer withdraws preprint after getting called out for using AI

Sodom comet paper to be retracted two years after editor’s note acknowledging concerns

The authors’ reconstruction of what the blast’s impact area may have been. Source

Scientific Reports has retracted a controversial paper claiming to present evidence an ancient city in the Middle East was destroyed by an exploding celestial body – an event the authors suggested could have inspired the Biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah. 

The decision comes two years after Scientific Reports, a Springer Nature title, published an editor’s note informing readers the journal was looking into concerns about the data and conclusions in the work. 

The then-pending retraction was the subject of an April 10 blog post by one of the paper’s authors, George Howard, who called the journal’s decision to remove the article “a profoundly disappointing and frankly disgusting turn of events.” 

Continue reading Sodom comet paper to be retracted two years after editor’s note acknowledging concerns

UC Davis research director loses three papers for image manipulation

Allen Gao

A lead researcher at UC Davis has lost three decades-old papers from the same journal for image duplication, and the journal says it is investigating more. 

Allen Gao, director of research for the Department of Urologic Surgery at the institution is first author on the papers, published in The Prostate. 

The journal retracted the articles – published in 2002, 2004 and 2009 – in  February. The papers have been cited 42, 71, and 27 times respectively, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.

Continue reading UC Davis research director loses three papers for image manipulation

Suspended UK surgeon earns nine expressions of concern, one withdrawal

A U.K.-based surgeon who was suspended last year for conducting colorectal surgeries that caused harm to hundreds of women has had nine of his research papers flagged and one withdrawn.

In July 2024, Tony Dixon was suspended for six months from Southmead Hospital and Spire Hospital in Bristol, England, by a tribunal at the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) after an investigation found the surgeries caused harm in 259 of his patients who underwent a procedure to treat rectal prolapse.

The MPTS panel extended the suspension in January for another six months, during which time Dixon is unable to operate on patients, a spokesperson for the U.K.’s General Medical Council (GMC) told Retraction Watch. 

Continue reading Suspended UK surgeon earns nine expressions of concern, one withdrawal

Weekend reads: Journals get letters from feds; invasion of the ‘journal snatchers’; should universities release misconduct reports?

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 500. There are more than 58,000 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):

Continue reading Weekend reads: Journals get letters from feds; invasion of the ‘journal snatchers’; should universities release misconduct reports?

Medical societies call for BMJ to retract ‘misleading and irresponsible’ guideline

The BMJ’s clinical practice guideline for chronic spine pain

Thirty-four medical professional societies have called for The BMJ to retract a recently published guideline recommending against the use of interventional procedures, such as steroid or anaesthetic injections, to treat chronic back pain. 

The journal published the guideline in February as part of its Rapid Recommendations program alongside a meta-analysis and systematic review of published research on the procedures, which the guideline panel used to inform its recommendations. The publications received international news coverage and enough chatter on social media platforms such as X and Bluesky to place them in the top 5 percent of all articles scored by Altmetric, a data company that tracks digital mentions of research. 

The societies, led by the International Pain and Spine Intervention Society, represent clinicians who prescribe or perform the interventional spine procedures the guideline recommends against. The groups “have serious concerns about the methodology and conclusions drawn in these publications and their potential impact on patient care,” they wrote in a statement dated March 18, and summarized in a rapid response on the BMJ’s website. The statement has since been published in The Spine Journal and Interventional Pain Medicine. 

Continue reading Medical societies call for BMJ to retract ‘misleading and irresponsible’ guideline

A new journal record: Sage title retracts 678 more papers, tally over 1,500

The retraction of “a final batch” of 678 articles concludes Sage’s investigation into questionable peer review, citation manipulation, and other signs of paper mill activity at one of its journals, according to the publisher. 

Sage has been investigating the Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems (JIFS) since early 2024 for “indicators that raised concerns about the authenticity of the research and the peer review process underlying these articles,” a Sage spokesperson told us. We reported in August on Sage’s retraction of 467 articles from the journal. The publisher retracted another 416 papers in January. With this latest batch, “our investigation into JIFS is now concluded,” the spokesperson said.

Sage acquired JIFS in November 2023 when it bought IOS Press. The indexing company Clarivate raised concerns about the quality of the articles in the journal shortly after and put the journal’s indexing on hold. Its entry on the Clarivate website still shows the “on hold” flag.

Continue reading A new journal record: Sage title retracts 678 more papers, tally over 1,500

Biochemist with previous image duplication retractions loses another paper 

Dario Alessi

A researcher who retracted two papers last year following a years-long investigation has lost another, this one two decades old.

The same journal also corrected two papers for image duplication within days of the retraction.

The moves followed comments about image similarities on PubPeer. The retraction marks the third for biochemist Dario Alessi, a professor at the University of Dundee in Scotland. Two of his papers were retracted in 2024, a process that took six years and included a four-year investigation by the university. 

Continue reading Biochemist with previous image duplication retractions loses another paper 

Chinese funding agency sanctions 26 researchers in latest misconduct report

The organization responsible for allocating basic research funding in China has issued misconduct findings against 26 researchers for violations ranging from breach of confidentiality to image manipulation, plagiarism, and buying and selling authorship. 

The National Natural Science Foundation of China, or NSFC, released the results of 15 misconduct investigations on April 11. Several of the investigations involved teams of researchers and many included specific published papers, 53 in total. China has been taking steps to crack down on academic fraud, calling last year for a review of all retracted articles in English- and Chinese-language journals. 

Penalties for the researchers ranged from bans on applying for funding or serving as a reviewer, to having research funding revoked — which includes having to return funds already dispersed. In most cases, the restrictions on applying for funding were for three to seven years. 

Continue reading Chinese funding agency sanctions 26 researchers in latest misconduct report

Weekend reads: Scientists won’t submit paper for deportation fears; watchdog: oversight lacking at EPA research group; ‘life after paper mills’

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

  • Math journal editors resign to launch open-access title ‘free from pressure or influence’
  • Indian university’s channel on publisher’s platform disappears
  • A ‘joke’: Paper with ‘completely irrelevant’ citations retracted
  • Replication probe finds ‘statistically improbable data’ tied to institute in Bangladesh

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 500. There are more than 58,000 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):

Continue reading Weekend reads: Scientists won’t submit paper for deportation fears; watchdog: oversight lacking at EPA research group; ‘life after paper mills’