Publisher infected twice with the same anti-vaccine article

Researchers who lost a paper derided by critics as anti-vaccine have republished their article in a different journal … owned by the same publisher (hint: rhymes with “smells of beer”). 

As we reported in April 2019, the original article version of “Cognition and behavior in sheep repetitively inoculated with aluminum adjuvant-containing vaccines or aluminum adjuvant only” appeared in November 2018 in Pharmacological Research.  

Antivaccine advocates such as Celeste McGovern seized on the study, which  also drew harsh criticism from Skeptical Raptor and Orac, who called it

…yet another in a string of animal models for [Autoimmune/inflammatory Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants] ASIA in which animals are subjected to treatments that have no resemblance to reality and possibly overdosed on aluminum, lots of comparisons are made on small numbers, and conclusions not justified by the results…

The journal, which belongs to Elsevier, withdrew the paper sometime between its appearance online and the following April (the exact date isn’t clear). 

Now, it  has popped up again in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry, another Elsevier property — same title, same authors. 

As “Smut Clyde,” who alerted us to the republication of the paper, notes: 

Its new home is the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry, as part of a Special Issue on “The Thirteenth Keele Meeting on Aluminium – Future Challenges in the Aluminium Age”; edited by Christopher Exley.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/journal-of-inorganic-biochemistry/special-issue/10H121F75SW

In the Proceedings of the 13th Keele Meeting we find prominent vaccine opponent Claire Dwoskin chairing one session, with presentations from vaccine opponents Gayle DeLong and Del Bigtree.

The senior author on the paper, Lluis Lujan, told us: 

The republished paper is basically the same to the unscientifically withdrawn in Pharmacological Research (read the story in your own web). However, it contains some information that was in the supplementary material before (some figures) and differs from that one after the indications made by the three referees that peer reviewed it. The Editor was aware of the previous facts.

We reached out to Elsevier as well but have yet to hear back.

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution 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].