Retraction Watch

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

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):

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.

Researchers appeal misconduct finding over studies of trans youth

Five researchers at Norway’s national gender incongruence clinic are appealing a university committee’s finding they committed “gross negligence” and scientific misconduct after the group published several studies using the medical records of more than 1,000 minors without patient consent.

Two of the articles set out to count how many minors were referred to the clinic, characterize the mental health burden of trans patients and document their treatment trajectories and detransition rates. In June, a joint committee of the University of Oslo and Oslo University Hospital (OUS) ruled five of the coauthors committed scientific misconduct for using the patients’ medical records without ethics approval or patient consent. The researchers maintain the work was for quality assurance, which in Norway doesn’t require consent. The committee ruled the work was research.

Two other articles violated research ethics standards in a “reprehensible” way, the committee found, but did not constitute misconduct. Those papers describe the outcomes of chest wall contouring and genital surgery.

Editors of higher education journal coauthor editorial with fake references

Taylor & Francis is investigating an article in one of its journals after the editors published an editorial about academic freedom that contains multiple fake references and citation errors.

In May, Anastasia Christou and Steve Lambert, coeditors of Journal of Higher and Further Education (JHFE), published an opinion piece about attacks on academic freedom and social justice research. The journal’s deputy editor Rosalind Latiner Raby also coauthored the editorial.

Of 31 references in the editorial, at least nine are nonexistent articles or contain incorrect journals or inaccurate author names. The problematic references include real scholars linked to articles they didn’t write and real journal titles associated with the wrong authors. The article also has numerous citation errors in the text. Fake references can be a sign of artificial intelligence use since large language models, such as ChatGPT, are known to hallucinate references.

Weekend reads: The AI ghosts ‘contaminating’ academic publishing; court upholds whistleblower suits; Ariely paper retracted after sleuths flag tampering

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

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

Study by Duke’s Dan Ariely retracted after sleuths find signs of data tampering
Journal retracts paper claiming network of corridors inside the Great Pyramid of Giza
Oxford researchers retract Nature paper on ‘atmospheric thirst’ for calculation errors

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):

Procrastination study by Duke’s Dan Ariely retracted after sleuths find signs of data tampering

A psychology journal has retracted a seminal 2002 paper on deadlines and procrastination coauthored by behavioral scientist Dan Ariely of Duke University just days after a team of sleuths published analyses of the original study data, finding it had been tampered with.

The posts, which appeared Aug. 31 and Sept. 2 on the Data Colada blog, dug into the datasets behind the two main experiments in Ariely’s paper, published 24 years ago in Psychological Science. The reanalysis was prompted by a study published July 15 in the same journal attempting to replicate one of the paper’s original experiments.

The Sept. 2 retraction notice cited all three works, noting the replication study “raised questions about the underlying data in the original study,” and the Data Colada posts “called into question the veracity of the overall findings.” Ariely’s coauthor on the paper, Klaus Wertenbroch, of INSEAD in France, requested the retraction on July 23, Psychological Science editor-in-chief Simine Vazire told Retraction Watch.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: