2021 – Page 19 – Retraction Watch

Weekend reads: Fraud in gaming vs. fraud in science; ‘a scholarly screw-up of biblical proportions’; pregnant male rats

Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, we could really use your help. Would you consider a tax-deductible donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance.

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

‘A fig leaf that doesn’t quite cover up’: Commission says philosopher engaged in ‘unacknowledged borrowings’ but not plagiarism
Britney Spears story prompts apology from Nature and author. Update.
Journal retracts paper claiming two deaths from COVID-19 vaccination for every three prevented cases. Earlier, and earlier still.
Ten journals denied 2020 Impact Factors because of excessive self-citation or “citation stacking”
A scientist critic was sued, and won — but did not emerge unscathed. This is his story.
How well do databases and journals indicate retractions? Hint: Inconsistently.

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 134.

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

Britney Spears story “remains as part of the publication record,” says Nature

A 2008 story in Nature about Britney Spears that prompted an apology from the author and the journal earlier this week “remains as part of the publication record,” Nature said in an editor’s note.

The story, titled “When Britney Spears comes to my lab,” appeared in a section of the journal called Nature Futures and refers to Spears “wearing a silver strapless stretch top that doesn’t show too much of her belly (unless she actually moves her arms), and black Capri pants with a little dip in the waistband.”

Spears, it said, would eventually go on to earn a PhD from Harvard and develop a treatment for diabetes. Before that, however, “Britney will pump out a lot of good data (she is something of a workaholic), but gradually, with her music, her intermittent marriages and pregnancies, not to mention her classes, the amount of time she spends in lab will begin to dwindle.”

In a note appended to the article sometime this week, following thousands of tweets and a Retraction Watch post, the editors write:

Journal retracts paper claiming two deaths from COVID-19 vaccination for every three prevented cases

Just days after adding an expression of concern to a paper published last week claiming that two people died from COVID-19 vaccinations for every three cases the vaccines prevented, the journal Vaccines has retracted the paper.

[See an update on this post, with more fallout from this case.]

As we have previously noted:

How well do databases and journals indicate retractions? Hint: Inconsistently.

Retraction Watch readers may recall the work of Elizabeth Suelzer, a librarian at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. Two years ago, she and colleagues published a study on why the infamous — and fraudulent — 1998 paper by Andrew Wakefield alleging a link between vaccine and autism had been cited more than 1,000 times. As Suelzer notes in the Q&A below, that work led to more questions about how well bibliographic databases and journal publishers display retraction status, when appropriate. The answer, they report in JAMA Network Open this week: They were inconsistent.

Retraction Watch (RW): What prompted you to do this study?

“If the data were not [correct], whose fault is this?” Authors of highly criticized COVID-19 vaccine study defend it

Earlier this week, we reported that a paper claiming that two deaths resulted from COVID-19 vaccination for every three cases that were prevented had earned an expression of concern.

[Please see an update on this post; the paper has been retracted.]

The authors, including Harald Walach, who was also co-author of a just-published paper in JAMA Pediatrics questioning the safety of masks in children, had used data from the Dutch national registry of side effects. That registry carries a warning label about its use. The editors of Vaccines, which published the study last month, wrote that there were concerns over “misrepresentation of the COVID-19 vaccination efforts and misrepresentation of the data.”

A scientist critic was sued, and won — but did not emerge unscathed. This is his story.

Retraction Watch readers may be familiar with the name David Sanders. Sanders, a biologist at Purdue University, has become a scientific sleuth, ferreting out problems in numerous papers. In one of those cases, that of Ohio State University professor Carlo Croce, Sanders ended up being sued — before an article in which he was quoted even came out. He eventually prevailed, but the episode left a mark, as readers will learn in this Q&A. (It has left a mark on Croce, too, in the form of 10 retractions and two suits brought by teams of lawyers for unpaid bills.)

Retraction Watch (RW): Carlo Croce sued you in 2017. Why?

Ten journals denied 2020 Impact Factors because of excessive self-citation or “citation stacking”

Clarivate, the company behind the Impact Factor, a closely watched — and controversial — metric, is calling out more than 20 journals for unusual citation patterns.

The 21 journals — 10 of which were suppressed, meaning they will not receive an Impact Factor in 2020, and 11 of which received an expression of concern — are fewer than half of the nearly 50 that the company suppressed or subjected to an expression of concern last year from its Journal Citation Report (JCR). The suppressions, the company notes, represent .05% of the journals listed — a total that increased dramatically this year from about 12,000 to about 20,000.

Clarivate suppressed 10 journals for excessive self-citation which inflates the Impact Factor, or for “citation-stacking,” sometimes referred to as taking part in “citation cartels” or “citation rings:”

Paper claiming two deaths from COVID-19 vaccination for every three prevented cases earns expression of concern

A study published last week that quickly became another flashpoint for those arguing that COVID-19 vaccines are unsafe has earned an expression of concern.

[Please see an update on this post; the paper has been retracted.]

The original paper, published in the MDPI title Vaccines, claimed that:

The number of cases experiencing adverse reactions has been reported to be 700 per 100,000 vaccinations. Currently, we see 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations, and the number of fatal side effects is at 4.11/100,000 vaccinations. For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination.

However, the study’s methods quickly drew scrutiny, and at least two members of Vaccines’ editorial board, Mount Sinai virologist Florian Krammer and Oxford immunologist Katie Ewer, said they have stepped down to protest the publication of the paper.

Britney Spears story prompts apology from Nature and author

Britney Spears has, as Retraction Watch readers no doubt know, been in the news a great deal lately, as the battle over her father’s “broad control over her life and finances” plays out in court. But a science fiction story about Spears that published in Nature in 2008 — the year Spears’ father was appointed her conservator — has prompted apologies from its author and the journal.

The story, which appeared in a section of the journal called Nature Futures, is titled “When Britney Spears comes to my lab.” It begins:

When Britney Spears comes to [Louisiana State University] LSU she’ll be wearing a silver strapless stretch top that doesn’t show too much of her belly (unless she actually moves her arms), and black Capri pants with a little dip in the waistband.

That and other passages in the piece — in which Spears goes on to earn a PhD from Harvard and discover a treatment for diabetes — caught the attention of more than 1,000 Twitter users since Friday. Many questioned why Nature would publish it. An example:

‘A fig leaf that doesn’t quite cover up’: Commission says philosopher engaged in ‘unacknowledged borrowings’ but not plagiarism

A philosopher with a double-digit retraction count did not commit plagiarism, according to a report released this weekend by France’s Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), where the researcher is employed.

Magali Roques has had 11 papers retracted from seven different journals, most of which referred to plagiarism in their notices. But as Daily Nous, which was first to report on the CNRS findings and which has been writing about the case for some months, notes, the commission says Roques’ “writings contain ‘neither academic fraud nor plagiarism properly so called.’” The report differentiates “plagiarism properly so called” from “unacknowledged borrowings,” evidence of which the commission found.

According to the report commissioned by CNRS:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: