Retraction Watch

Weekend reads: Retractions by Nobel Prize winners; privatizing peer review; fake mouse brains

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Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 400. 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 250 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):

Authors sue Sage over “discriminatory” retractions of papers cited in abortion pill case

The authors of three papers about abortion Sage retracted earlier this year have sued the publisher, alleging the company pulled the articles “for pretextual and discriminatory reasons.”

In February, Sage retracted three articles from Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology “because of undeclared conflicts of interest and after expert reviewers found that the studies demonstrate a lack of scientific rigor that invalidates or renders unreliable the authors’ conclusions,” according to the publisher’s statement at the time. Sage also removed the paper’s lead author from the editorial board of the journal.

A federal judge cited two of the articles last year in his decision to suspend approval of mifepristone, a drug used in medical abortions.

Pain researcher in Italy up to seven retractions

A physiatrist in Italy has lost four publications this year after two groups of researchers raised concerns about his research.

The physician, Marco Monticone, a professor at the University of Cagliari, had three papers pulled in 2022, as we reported at the time. Those retractions followed a critique by Cochrane researchers who analyzed data in 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) headed by Monticone.

Neil O’Connell, of Brunel University of London, lead author of the critique, told us:

New engineering dean has two retractions for authorship manipulation

A newly appointed dean at the University of Guelph in Canada has had two papers retracted for “evidence of authorship manipulation.”

Another article by the researcher, Moncef Nehdi, formerly of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, seems to match a paper that had its authorship advertised for sale, according to a post on PubPeer.

Nehdi told Retraction Watch he stands by his group’s work in the two retracted papers, but agreed with the retractions because he thought the investigations “raised some valid concerns.”

Nehdi began a five-year term as dean of the University of Guelph’s College of Engineering and Physical Sciences on September 1, according to an announcement this spring. The announcement stated:

Hidden hydras: uncovering the massive footprint of one paper mill’s operations

At the heart of any paper mill’s operations sits an unavoidable contradiction. On the one hand, paper mills must keep their operations clandestine lest they be discovered and have their clients’ articles retracted en masse. On the other, paper mills must make themselves visible to some degree to attract new customers. For instance, advertisements for paper mills abound on services like WhatsApp and Telegram. This contradiction makes it difficult for researchers like us who study systematic fraud to get a full sense of the scope of any paper mill’s operations. By charting the web presence of one shady business, we sought to do just that.

About a year ago, we began probing search engines with queries a scientist desperate for publications might make: “authorship for sale,” “call for co-authors,” “scopus-indexed publications,” “guaranteed journal acceptance,” etc. We figured paper mills would litter their pages with these phrases in a bid to be easily found by customers. Sure enough, one of our first searches directed us to the front page of the Academic Research and Development Association (ARDA), based in Chennai, India.

ARDA presents itself as a professional organization that offers services including “Conferences and Meetings”, “Journal Publications” and “Article Writing Services”. ARDA also maintains lists of indexed journals in which it can guarantee publication, along with guidelines on how long acceptance should take and instructions to limit plagiarism to a journal-specific threshold. All of these journals claim to be peer-reviewed on their own websites. Many of the titles listed on ARDA’s site are well-known hijacked journals already found on the Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker. Other journals, such as the International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education and the Journal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results, are favorites of authors from Saveetha Dental College, a school caught inflating its rankings in a large self-citation scheme.

Web of Science puts mega-journals Cureus and Heliyon on hold

Web of Science, Clarivate’s influential database of abstracts and citations, has paused indexation of new content from the open-access journals Heliyon and Cureus, apparently due to concerns about the quality of their articles.

Indexation in WoS or Scopus, another major bibliometric database owned by Elsevier, has become an important stamp of approval for scholarly publications worldwide and can make or break a journal.

WoS is “making a big call here, taking aim at two of the mega-journals that have grown massively in recent years,” said Nick Wise, a scientific sleuth and a researcher at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. “WoS appears to be one of the only organisations with the power to compel big publishers to act. I don’t think that’s a sign of a healthy academic publishing system, but it’s how things are currently.”

Weekend reads: Top NIH neuroscientist out amid suspicion; the issue with special issues; an ingredient derailed experiments

Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

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

Homeopathy for cancer paper extensively corrected after watchdog agency requested retraction

A paper that claimed to show a homeopathic intervention improved quality of life and survival for people with advanced lung cancer has received an extensive correction two years after a research integrity watchdog asked the journal to retract the article over concerns about manipulated data, Retraction Watch has learned.

The two scientists who sounded the alarm on the paper are not satisfied with the correction, they told us.

The article, “Homeopathic Treatment as an Add‐On Therapy May Improve Quality of Life and Prolong Survival in Patients with Non‐Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Prospective, Randomized, Placebo‐Controlled, Double‐Blind, Three‐Arm, Multicenter Study,” appeared in The Oncologist in November 2020. Michael Frass, the lead author of the paper, is a homeopathic practitioner who was working at the Medical University of Vienna, at the time the work was published.

Publisher adds temporary online notifications to articles “under investigation”

Some journal articles on the Taylor & Francis website now bear a pop-up notification stating the papers are “currently under investigation.”

The publisher began adding the notices to articles such as this one in June, according to a spokesperson, as a way to inform readers about an ongoing investigation “so that they can exercise appropriate caution when considering the research presented.”

Like the “editor’s notes” posted on Springer Nature articles under investigation, Taylor & Francis’ pop-ups only appear on the publisher’s website, not in databases where researchers might be searching for papers.

1 in 7 scientific papers is fake, suggests study that author calls ‘wildly nonsystematic’

In 2009, a now highly-cited study found an average of around 2% of scientists admit to have falsified, fabricated, or modified data at least once in their career.

Fifteen years on, a new analysis tried to quantify how much science is fake – but the real number may remain elusive, some observers said.

The analysis, published before peer review on the Open Science Framework on September 24, found one in seven scientific papers may be at least partly fake. The author, James Heathers, a long-standing scientific sleuth, arrived at that figure by averaging data from 12 existing studies — collectively containing a sample of around 75,000 studies — that estimate the volume of problematic scientific output.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: