Retractions are slowly stacking up for an exercise researcher in Brazil whose work has come under scrutiny by data sleuths, including a couple of his erstwhile co-authors. The concerns prompted an investigation by his former institution into one of his academic supervisors, who may be facing sanctions, Retraction Watch has learned.
In June 2020, the sleuths posted a preprint calling for the retraction of seven papers by the researcher, Matheus Barbalho, a PhD student at the Centro de Ciências Biológicas e da Saúde, part of the Universidade da Amazônia, in Belém. The reason, according to the sleuths – who included James Steele and James Fisher, of Solent University in the United Kingdom, both of whom were co-authors on papers with Barbalho: the data were, in their view “atypical, improbable, and to put it bluntly, pretty weird.”
Since then, journals have retracted two of Barbalho’s papers (he had lost one in April 2020), citing concerns about the data in the articles.
The latest removal involves an August 2020 paper in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research – published, in other words, after the sleuths’ shot across the Bowflex – titled “Influence of Adding Single-Joint Exercise to a Multijoint Resistance Training Program in Untrained Young Women.” Barbalho was the first author on the study, which has been cited eight times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science.
According to the retraction notice:
We are hereby retracting the article due to data irregularities and concerns regarding the accuracy of the data and subsequent interpretations of the findings. After close examination of the concerns brought to our attention by a group of researchers, 2 of which were co-authors of the study, an ad hoc committee reviewed the available data in detail, evaluated the concerns and subsequent responses from the corresponding author, and concluded that the data were untrustworthy.
Barbalho did not respond to a request for comment.
Steele told us:
European Journal of Sport Science, Experimental Geronotology, and Sports are all currently in the late stages of their own investigations which to our knowledge has involved contact with the Federal Universidade Federal de Goiás where [co-author] Paulo Gentil is based and who have been conducting their own internal investigation. After initial animosity from the editor of European Journal of Translational Myology we got in contact with the publisher [PagePress] who have ignored several emails.
Steele said that for the latest retraction, the journal – the scientific journal of the National Strength and Conditioning Association – initially offered two options: a letter to the editor (or “manuscript clarification”) or:
a route with possible “legal consequences” and which involved us making allegations of misconduct. Because of the sting from their recent situation with Crossfit [Editor’s note: That situation involved financial settlement over a paper with fabricated data.]… they were pretty reluctant about the latter option noting:
‘JSCR is not an investigative body. If you are claiming fraud or misconduct then you must contact the IRB or Ethics Office at the institution where the research was completed. They will conduct an internal investigation. Upon completion of that investigation, we will take appropriate action.’
This seemed to imply that any investigation should be conducted by either the university or IRB, and it was actually the case that an investigation was happening as noted above
We followed up with Dr [Nicholas] Ratamess, EiC of JSCR after the retraction from MSSE who said their position remained the same. We were reluctant to write this single letter as we felt it obfuscates the broader issues with the body of work we had identified.
Following this however, Dr Ratamess clarified that we could explicitly state in a letter that we (myself and James Fisher) were requesting retraction of the paper highlighting the issues raised. He would then take this personally to the Manuscript Clarification Committee, and while he was happy with the idea of retraction, ultimately it would be their decision.
We submitted this manuscript clarification and in response the committee asked for various clarification of the background, our claims (including that we were not making any accusations of the provenance of the data, merely asking for clarification regarding its improbability) our roles, and if we could also share the original data that we had access to from the paper which we did. It was then decided that the issue be moved outside of the manuscript clarification process, and was instead handled by a separate committee appointed by Dr Ratamess. They contacted the co-authors of the paper in question and asked for their response, to which the co-authors requested an extension which was granted. This group then considered the response (which we did not see) alongside our concerns and ultimately decided to retract the paper.
The papers mentioned in the June 2020 preprint which remain unretracted are:
- The Effects of Resistance Exercise Selection on Muscle Size and Strength in Trained Women. (This one does have a correction, from March 2021.)
- Back Squat vs. Hip Thrust Resistance-training Programs in Well-trained Women.
- Single joint exercises do not provide benefits in performance and anthropometric changes in recreational bodybuilders.
- Does the addition of single joint exercises to a resistance training program improve changes in performance and anthropometric measures in untrained men?
- Effects of Adding Single Joint Exercises to a Resistance Training Programme in Trained Women.
- There are no no-responders to low or high resistance training volumes among older women. [reportedly under investigation by the journal]
On Wednesday, the Federal Attorney’s Office, which advises the executive branch of the Universidade Federal de Goiás (UFG), issued a finding that an inquiry into Paulo Gentil, the senior author on the papers, had been conducted legally, according to Tancredo Silva, an official at UFG. Silva declined to say what the inquiry found:
We cannot provide any official document of the process until there is a decision by the Rector of the Federal University of Goiás (UFG) to accept or not the Attorney’s opinion, duly substantiated. Consequently, we can only provide minimum processing information with respect to the Brazilian Law on Access to Information (Law no. 12.527/2011), given that this is a restricted process.
Silva added that:
The eventual decision to process the complaint is just a step to formalize the complaint and give the UFG professor the opportunity to defend himself. In Brazil, there is respect for the so-called principle of presumption of innocence until there is a final decision on the conviction, without the possibility of appeal. In this way, the accused public servant is innocent for all purposes, until the final decision cannot be appealed.
Babalho is no longer affiliated with the UFG “and cannot be subject to disciplinary action by the institution,” Silva said.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a one-time tax-deductible contribution by PayPal or by Square, or a monthly tax-deductible donation by Paypal to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, 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].