Weekend reads: Majorana manipulation allegations; Norway’s most-published researcher committed misconduct; ‘second chance’ for convicted Harvard chemist

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Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 500.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 59,000 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: Majorana manipulation allegations; Norway’s most-published researcher committed misconduct; ‘second chance’ for convicted Harvard chemist

Journal investigating placebo effect study following Retraction Watch inquiry

An Elsevier journal is investigating a paper by a controversial author after a Retraction Watch inquiry about the article. The article concluded that “placebo effects have a significant impact on observed outcomes” in both placebo and treatment groups in clinical trials. 

The senior author of the paper is Harald Walach, whose name may be familiar. In one paper, now retracted, Walach and his coauthors claimed COVID-19 vaccines killed two people for every three deaths they prevented. In a different paper, also retracted, Walach and his colleagues claimed children’s masks trap carbon dioxide; they later republished the article in a different journal. He lost two papers and a university affiliation in 2021. 

One of his latest papers, “Treatment effects in pharmacological clinical randomized controlled trials are mainly due to placebo,” appeared online December 27 in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 

Continue reading Journal investigating placebo effect study following Retraction Watch inquiry

Web of Science delists bioengineering journal in wake of paper mill cleanup

Bioengineered has lost its spot in Clarivate’s Web of Science index, as of its April update. The journal has been working to overcome a flood of paper mill activity, but sleuths have questioned why hundreds of papers with potentially manipulated images have still not been retracted.

A spokesperson for Taylor & Francis, which publishes the journal, said it has taken action against the paper mill; the journal has retracted 86 papers since January 2022. They are “disappointed” at the delisting decision, the spokesperson said. The journal now faces up to a two-year embargo before it can rejoin the citation index. 

Bioengineered publishes bioengineering and biotechnology research. In 2021, journal editors launched an investigation when submissions spiked and several authors of submitted and accepted articles asked for authorship changes – both hallmarks of paper mill activity. 

Continue reading Web of Science delists bioengineering journal in wake of paper mill cleanup

Journal collected $400,000 from papers it later retracted

A Sage journal that holds the distinction of highest number of retracted articles in the Retraction Watch Database likely made in excess of $400,000 in revenue from those papers, by our calculations.

We reported in April that the Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems (JIFS) had retracted 1,561 articles as part of a cleanup operation on likely paper mill activity. The journal, which Sage acquired in November 2023 when it bought IOS Press, had previously retracted a batch of 49 articles in October 2021. That brings its retraction total up to 1,610.

Commenters on the April article pointed out the journal charges a fee for all accepted papers; separate fees apply for open access. We followed up on that with a few questions for Sage.

Continue reading Journal collected $400,000 from papers it later retracted

‘Now is not the time to fade’: Retraction Watch awarded Council of Science Editors’ highest honor

Retraction Watch cofounders Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky accept the award.

Retraction Watch has been honored with the Council of Science Editors’ highest honor: The 2025 Award for Meritorious Achievement.

CSE gives the award each year to an organization or individual who has made “significant contributions” toward the goal of CSE, “namely, the improvement of scientific communication through the pursuit of high standards in all activities connected with editing.” 

We were honored to be at the CSE Annual Meeting in Minneapolis today to accept the award. Below is a lightly edited version of our acceptance speech.

Continue reading ‘Now is not the time to fade’: Retraction Watch awarded Council of Science Editors’ highest honor

A ‘stupid mistake’: EPA researcher added their underage child as an author on manuscript 

A researcher at the Environmental Protection Agency added their underage child as a coauthor on a paper after the manuscript cleared the agency’s internal review, an investigation found. 

The revelation, which calls into question the EPA’s process for reviewing papers, was among several highlighted by the agency’s Office of Inspector General in an April 8 report, which is redacted for names and identifying details. 

The report cites specific concerns regarding the researcher, including that their child listed the paper among their accomplishments on college applications. These and other authorship practices revealed deeper issues with the review system at the EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD), which the report found “lacks oversight.” The OIG recommended the office take steps to address shortcomings, as the collaborations “remained unchecked” for “several years.” 

Continue reading A ‘stupid mistake’: EPA researcher added their underage child as an author on manuscript 

Weekend reads: Journal halts submissions, citing NIH cuts; rejected paper published by ‘mistake’; feds cancel grant amid misconduct allegations

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

  • University of Toronto should take action on flawed breast screening study, says longtime critic
  • Experiment using AI-generated posts on Reddit draws fire for ethics concerns
  • AI-Reddit study leader gets warning as ethics committee moves to ‘stricter review process’
  • Why has it taken more than a year to correct a COVID-19 paper?
  • A Ph.D. in paper mills? 
  • Former cancer researcher who sued university for discrimination hits 35 retractions

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: Journal halts submissions, citing NIH cuts; rejected paper published by ‘mistake’; feds cancel grant amid misconduct allegations

Former cancer researcher who sued university for discrimination hits 35 retractions

A cancer researcher who was once the subject of a misconduct investigation at an Illinois university more than 10 years ago has made his debut on the Retraction Watch Leaderboard with 35 retractions. 

Last month Oncogene, a Springer Nature title, retracted 15 articles by Jasti Rao, formerly of the University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria. A 2014 university investigation into his lab’s publications found manipulation and rotation of images that “‘show a disturbing pattern’ indicative that Rao acted intentionally or recklessly,” we previously reported.  Rao sued the university for wrongful termination but lost. 

More than 100 of Rao’s papers have comments on PubPeer, most originating from a user called Lotus azoricus. We now know that pseudonym belongs to sleuth Elisabeth Bik.

Continue reading Former cancer researcher who sued university for discrimination hits 35 retractions

A Ph.D. in paper mills? 

Bank Phrom/Unsplash

A university and a publisher are teaming up to combat paper mills in a unique way: By enlisting a Ph.D. candidate.

In April, the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) at Leiden University in the Netherlands announced it would be collaborating with Wiley to establish a four-year research position focused on paper mills.

“Of course one Ph.D. will not fix the problem,” said Cyril Labbé of Grenoble Alpes University in France, whose lab hosted a Ph.D. student in 2014 to detect computer-generated manuscripts. “But going this way is far more constructive than resorting to empty rhetoric and wooden language, as some publishers tend to do.”

Continue reading A Ph.D. in paper mills? 

Why has it taken more than a year to correct a COVID-19 paper?

A correction to a clinical trial on a potential treatment for COVID-19 has taken more than a year — and counting — to get published. In the meantime, the article remains marked with an expression of concern that appeared in February 2024. 

The Lancet Regional Health–Americas published the study, a randomized clinical trial of the effect of metformin on hospitalization rates among COVID-19 patients, in December 2021. It has been cited 36 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science, 12 of those since the publication of the expression of concern.

In December 2023, the authors “identified small errors in the statistical analysis primary outcome,” corresponding author Edward Mills, a health research methods professor at McMaster University, in Hamilton, Ontario, told Retraction Watch. “We immediately re-ran the analysis and submitted as an erratum,” he said. 

Continue reading Why has it taken more than a year to correct a COVID-19 paper?