Retraction Watch

Judge tosses lawsuit over controversial Paxil ‘Study 329’

A judge has dismissed a legal challenge aimed at forcing Elsevier to retract a long-criticized study that concluded the antidepressant Paxil was safe and effective for teens.

The 2001 paper, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (JAACAP), has faced scrutiny for more than 20 years by critics who say the study has led to unwarranted and potentially harmful prescribing of the drug to youth. As we reported last October, the journal placed an expression of concern on the paper shortly after a lawsuit was filed by attorney George W. Murgatroyd III against the journal’s owner, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), and Elsevier, which publishes the title.

In his complaint, filed in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Murgatroyd claimed the journal is violating the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) by continuing to “publish, distribute, and sell a fraudulent scientific article that contains material facts” that mislead the public and endanger adolescent mental health and safety. AACAP and Elsevier are profiting from the article by charging readers to buy access to the paper, according to the complaint.

Attorneys for AACAP argue Murgatroyd does not have standing to bring the complaint. On Nov. 24, 2025, Elsevier filed a motion to dismiss, reiterating the standing argument and also asserting the publisher’s First Amendment rights would be violated if the court granted the relief sought by Murgatroyd, according to court documents.

In a March 24 decision, Judge Robert Okun granted Elsevier’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing. Murgatroyd can’t move forward with the suit because he failed to establish “or even plausibly” allege the journal article is a consumer good or service under the CPPA, according to Okun’s ruling. The CPPA defines a consumer good or service as anything someone would purchase or receive and normally use for personal, household or family purposes.

JAACAP and AACAP did not return messages seeking comment.

A spokesperson for Elsevier said the publisher “notes the Court’s decision to dismiss the case.”

“As this matter has been resolved by the Court, we do not have further comment,” the spokesperson said.

Murgatroyd, who previously represented families whose children died by suicide after taking Paxil, said he was disappointed with the ruling. However, he doesn’t see the decision as “the end of the story,” he told us.

Okun dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning Murgatroyd could refile the complaint under a revised legal argument. Murgatroyd told us he is currently researching the possibility.

“The good news is we got the EoC,” he told us in an email.

Murgatroyd is also awaiting the results of the journal’s investigation into the paper, which JAACAP has stated will be managed according to Committee on Publication Ethics recommendations and guidance.

The 2001 JAACCP paper described the results of a randomized, controlled trial, known as “Study 329,” evaluating the efficacy of Paxil in treating adolescent depression. The study concluded the drug was safe and effective in kids ages 12 to 18.

In 2012, Paxil maker GlaxoSmithKline agreed to pay $3 billion to settle civil and criminal charges that included “unlawful promotion” of the drug for adolescents, for whom the product was never approved, and allegations the company “participated in preparing, publishing and distributing a misleading medical journal article.”

A reanalysis in 2015 found the drug was “ineffective and unsafe” for the age group studied. Despite the developments and ongoing calls for retraction, the 2025 expression of concern was the paper’s first mark by the publisher. The notice states:

JAACAP is publishing this expression of concern in order to alert readers to concerns that have been raised about the article. Further review is underway, and an expression of concern will continue to be associated with the article until an outcome is reached.

Murgatroyd’s legal complaint against AACAP and Elsevier sought relief in the form of a retraction of the paper and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

He has also filed formal complaints with Elsevier’s Scopus Content Selection & Advisory Board regarding the continued indexing of the Paxil article and JAACAP as an organization. He has filed similar complaints with the National Library of Medicine and Clarivate Web of Science, he said.

The NLM complaint requests the library initiate a formal reevaluation of JAACAP‘scontinued participation in MEDLINE and PubMed Central, based on the journal’s “documented and systemic failure to follow COPE retraction guidelines” and ensure the expression of concern on the JAACAP article is “prominently and accurately reflected” in PubMed’s citation record.

Murgatroyd has also asked JAACAP to send him the results of its investigation when it has concluded. If the review is appropriately conducted in adherence with COPE guidelines and doesn’t result in a retraction, the outcome would be “more than disappointing,” he told us.

“That would be outrageous,” he said. “The battle is not over yet, so we will see where it goes over the next several weeks.”

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, like us on Facebook, follow us on LinkedIn, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].

Processing…

Success! You're on the list.

Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.

Biology journal ghosts researcher after holding paper hostage

In a story readers might find familiar, a researcher was asked to pay when he demanded a journal retract an article he had never seen but supposedly wrote — and the journal ghosted him when he refused.

In February, Evgenios Agathokleous, an environmental resources researcher at Nanjing University of Information Science & Technology in China, asked Prime Scholars’ European Journal of Experimental Biology to retract a 2023 article that listed him as the sole author. In his email to the journal, he said he had never seen the paper and asked the journal to remove it and publish a formal retraction notice.

Two days later, a Prime Scholars representative named Nina responded, telling Agathokleous “your article has already been successfully published in our journal in accordance with the company’s publication norms and policies.” Nina then asked Agathokleous to pay 519 euros, the equivalent of roughly $600, which they said “covers the costs associated with publication handling, indexing preparation, and database maintenance.”

BMJ retracts cardiac stem cell paper, removes authors months after sleuths flag data ‘mismatch’

The BMJ has retracted a paper on stem cell therapy for heart failure after sleuths flagged the work for “serious” inconsistencies in data.

Published in October, the paper reported the results of a phase III clinical trial of more than 400 patients in Shiraz, Iran, looking at whether stem cell therapy lowers the risk of heart failure after a heart attack. The journal announced the results in a press release, and news of the findings appeared in several outlets. New Scientist called the study the “strongest evidence yet that stem cells can help the heart repair itself.”

A week after the study was published, sleuths took to PubPeer to point out inconsistencies between the data reported in the article and the dataset uploaded with it. The concerns included a “curious repeating pattern” of records in the dataset and a high number of integers for the height and weight of patients.

Jury to decide whether Duke retaliated against researcher who reported sexual harassment

A jury will soon decide whether leaders at Duke University accused a researcher of misconduct in retaliation for her reporting sexual harassment at the institution.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Patrick Auld ruled Brahmajothi Mulugu provided enough evidence to show the timing of Duke’s misconduct investigation against her may have been retaliatory, allowing Mulugu’s legal challenge to proceed. In his Jan. 16 decision, Auld denied a motion by Duke to end the lawsuit, concluding a jury should weigh whether Mulugu’s sexual harassment report fueled the university’s misconduct actions against the scientist.

Mulugu, an immunologist in Duke’s Department of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology, sued the university in 2023, alleging leaders conducted an “unjustified” research misconduct investigation after she reported sexual harassment by then-professor Mohamed Bahie Abou-Donia. The university’s Office of Institutional Equity (OIE) substantiated Mulugu’s harassment report in November 2020, and Abou-Donia resigned, according to a case summary in Auld’s decision.

A citation alert led researchers to a network of fake articles. But who is benefiting?

A few months ago, when Elle O’Brien, a data scientist at the University of Michigan, was checking who had recently cited her work on Google Scholar, she came across something that would take her and her colleagues down “a rabbit hole.”

When O’Brien opened a publication that had recently cited her, it appeared to be a rewritten version of an arXiv preprint she had co-authored with two colleagues, Grischa Liebel and Sebastian Baltes. Yet this did not seem to be a simple case of theft by other academics.

For starters, the six authors listed on the fake article didn’t exist, although three had been given the same institutional affiliations as O’Brien, Liebel, and Baltes: the University of Michigan, Reykjavik University and Heidelberg University, respectively. The similarities in the texts read as if someone had typed, “ChatGPT, please rephrase this paper without changing anything else,” Liebel wrote in a post on LinkedIn. But why would fake authors need publications?

Weekend reads: ‘Illicit AI use’ in hundreds of peer reviews; 49-year-old commentary on talc retracted; co-authorship as a ‘traded commodity’

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

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

Physicists flag over 50 papers on superheavy elements, leading to 3 retractions
Guest post: A call to end the ‘impact on conclusions’ test for retraction
Publisher to retract entire conference proceedings, ban editor who wrote most of them
The Lancet retracts half-century-old commentary on talc for undisclosed industry ties
Judge upholds 15-year debarment against scientist who once threatened to sue Retraction Watch
Why don’t journalists circle back to cover retractions? A conversation with Malgorzata Iwaniec-Thompson

In case you missed the news, the Hijacked Journal Checker now has more than 400 entries. The Retraction Watch Database has over 63,000 retractions. Our list of COVID-19 retractions is up to 650, 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):

Why don’t journalists circle back to cover retractions? A conversation with Malgorzata Iwaniec-Thompson

In a paper published last month in the Journal of Documentation, a team of researchers in journalism, social science and data explore how and why journalists report – or don’t report – on scientific retractions.

The investigators performed an analysis on news coverage of “high-attention retracted articles” identified from the Retraction Watch database and other sources and also interviewed journalists from the U.K. and Finland to gain a cross-cultural perspective.

The lead author of the paper, Malgorzata Iwaniec-Thompson, of the University of Sheffield’s School of Information, Journalism and Communication, took questions from us about the work.

Judge upholds 15-year debarment against scientist who once threatened to sue Retraction Watch

An appeals judge has recommended the U.S. Health and Human Services uphold a proposed 15-year debarment for a scientist accused of research misconduct more than a decade ago.

In a May 2025 decision, administrative law judge (ALJ) Margaret G. Brakebusch concluded that “undisputed facts” establish Ariel Fernández engaged in research misconduct by falsifying research results in published papers, grant applications and other materials while serving as a professor at Rice University in Houston. Brakebusch recommended HHS affirm the proposed sanctions made by the Office of Research Integrity in a 2022 charging letter — including a 15-year ban from federal funding for Fernández, an Argentine chemist.

The development is the latest in a lengthy saga involving skepticism over Fernández’s work dating back to 2009. Over the years, scientists have criticized his work, journals have investigated his papers, and Fernández has flip-flopped about the funding sources for some of his articles. Fernández also levied a legal threat against Retraction Watch in the past for reporting on an expression of concern in one of his papers.

The Lancet retracts half-century-old unsigned commentary on talc for undisclosed industry ties

The Lancet has retracted a 49-year-old unsigned commentary on the safety of cosmetic talc after two researchers discovered the author was a paid consultant to Johnson & Johnson, at the time a leading producer of talc products.

The anonymous commentary has been used for decades by corporate defense attorneys to claim scientific proof of talc products’ safety, according to critics. But one such attorney says the paper “would not be relied upon to any significant degree.”

Published in 1977, the article argued against government-mandated regulatory testing for asbestos in cosmetic talc. Around that time, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration was considering such monitoring, a task that ultimately became the responsibility of cosmetics companies.

Publisher to retract entire conference proceedings, ban editor who wrote most of them

*EPJ Web of Conferences* will retract the entire volume of conference proceedings for ICEMR 2025.

On Monday, we published a story about a physicist in India who had three papers on superheavy elements retracted after others in his field began flagging his work. Hours later, a publisher decided to retract an entire volume of conference proceedings after one of the critics pointed out the researcher, H.C. Manjunatha, was responsible for the majority of its contents.

Manjunatha is listed as coordinator of the International Conference on Emerging Frontiers in Material Science and Radiation Physics, which took place in December. Manjunatha was one of four editors for the conference’s proceedings published in EPJ Web of Conferences on March 18. Of the 55 articles in the volume, Manjunatha is an author on 32.

David Boilley, a physicist at the University of Caen Normandy and researcher at GANIL, emailed EDP Sciences, which publishes EPJ Web of Conferences, on March 22 noting Manjunatha’s position as editor and the large number of papers he authored in the volume. Boilley, whom we interviewed for our story, mentioned the forthcoming article to the journal and also included a copy of his recent preprint calling out Manjunatha’s papers.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: