Retraction Watch

‘Confusing and frankly, disturbing’: When researchers are impersonated

Ariel Karlinsky was confused. A Ph.D. student at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, he had just received a message stating the paper he had submitted to an economics conference in Moldova had been accepted.

But Karlinsky hadn’t submitted his work to the conference. In fact, he had never even heard about the event.

At first, Karlinsky assumed a predatory conference had signed him up without his knowledge. But he recognized the name of one of the organizers, the National Institute for Economic Research, which he knew to be legitimate.

Exclusive: American Heart Association reviewing award to rocket scientist with seven retractions

The American Heart Association is reviewing its decision to give an award to the architect of a controversial theory that is the subject of ~~eight~~ seven retracted papers, Retraction Watch has learned. In the meantime, the researcher is using the award to contest several of the retractions.

The Paul Dudley White International Scholar Award “recognizes the team of authors with the highest-ranked scientific abstract from every participating country for each AHA scientific meeting,” according to the award website.

At its Basic Cardiovascular Sciences 2025 conference in July, the association gave the award for best abstract from India to work describing “Sanal flow choking” theory, which is named after lead author, V. R. Sanal Kumar, a professor of aerospace engineering at Amity University in New Delhi. As we have previously reported, some scientists have denounced the concept as “absolute nonsense” and “inaccurate and paradoxical” — and earlier this year, a journal said it “fundamentally violates” a law of thermodynamics.

Less is more: Academic publishing needs ‘radical change,’ Cambridge press report concludes

Academic publishing needs “renewed focus and collective action” to embrace new approaches and ensure the future of the industry, concludes a report from Cambridge University Press, released last week.

What started as an exploration of barriers to open access models turned into a call for “radical change” in academic publishing. “It has been clear for some time that the publishing ecosystem is under increasing strain,” Mandy Hill, managing director of Cambridge University Press, wrote in the introduction to the report. “This was the case before the growth of open access, but it is also clear that the shift to open has not solved the problems, as some early open access advocates may have hoped.”

The report, which followed workshops and interviews with stakeholders, includes results of a survey of more than 3,000 researchers, librarians, funders, publishers and societies.

Exclusive: Journal to retract Alzheimer’s study after investigation finds misconduct

A journal says it will retract a 2019 paper on an Alzheimer’s treatment after an institutional investigation found research misconduct, according to emails seen by Retraction Watch. The move comes four years after another investigation by the same university uncovered image duplication in a different paper by a similar group of authors.

The paper, published in Biological Psychiatry, describes the potential of an apoE antagonist for treatment in Alzheimer’s disease.

A 2019 news release by the University of South Florida, home to several of the researchers involved in the study, called the work “promising.” Lead author Darrell Sawmiller, an assistant professor at USF, said the study represented “the first time … we have direct evidence” apoE “acts as an essential molecule” in the mechanisms leading to Alzheimer’s.

Weekend reads: Spinal researcher gave patients ‘false hope’; HHS admits error in laying off top ethics official; Alzheimer’s fraud trial set to begin

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

A review claimed a researcher was an expert in sex robots. He’s not
Iraqi dean earns another retraction for paper posted for sale on Facebook
Sleuth loses paper for duplicate publication after flagging hundreds of untrustworthy articles
Controversial Paxil “Study 329” earns expression of concern after critic sues publisher
Exclusive: Iraqi university forcing students to cite its journals to graduate

Did you know that Retraction Watch and the Retraction Watch Database are projects of The Center of Scientific Integrity? Others include the Medical Evidence Project, the Hijacked Journal Checker, and the Sleuths in Residence Program. Help support this work.

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

Exclusive: Iraqi university forcing students to cite its journals to graduate

To earn their degrees, graduate students at the University of Technology in Baghdad not only must publish research in indexed journals. They also are required to cite articles in their school’s own publications, a document obtained by Retraction Watch shows.

Experts who reviewed the document called the citation requirement “deceptive and despicable” and said it could carry a steep price for the journals involved, one of which is indexed in Scopus.

Coercive citation is widespread in academia and can help boost the rankings of publications, institutions and individual researchers. The practice is considered unethical and may trigger heavy penalties.

Controversial Paxil “Study 329” earns expression of concern after critic sues publisher

After more than 20 years of criticism and calls for retraction, a journal has placed an expression of concern on a study of the antidepressant Paxil in teens that critics say has led to unwarranted and potentially harmful prescribing of the drug to youth.

The 2001 paper, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (JAACAP), reported findings from a randomized trial known as “Study 329,” which concluded the antidepressant Paxil was safe and effective in kids ages 12 to 18.

In 2012, Paxil maker GlaxoSmithKline agreed to pay $3 billion to settle civil and criminal charges that included “unlawful promotion” of the drug for adolescents, for whom the product was never approved, and allegations the company “participated in preparing, publishing and distributing a misleading medical journal article” — the JAACAP paper. A reanalysis in 2015 found the drug was “ineffective and unsafe” for the age group studied.

Sleuth loses paper for duplicate publication after flagging hundreds of untrustworthy articles

A sleuth who has identified several hundred articles describing clinical women’s health research with untrustworthy data, leading to nearly 300 retractions, has now lost one of his own papers for duplicate publication.

Ben Mol, who leads the Evidence-based Women’s Health Care Research Group in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Monash University in Australia, has worked to raise awareness of problematic data informing medical recommendations for women’s health care, and to cleanse the literature of unreliable studies, with major media outlets covering his work.

Mol told Retraction Watch about 50 of his papers have been investigated since 2020, usually after anonymous complaints. “It is clear that somebody had been screening my papers … in a systematic way to find any wrongdoing,” he said. His only other retraction came after he and colleagues found an error in their own work and requested the action.

Iraqi dean earns another retraction for paper posted for sale on Facebook

A dean and professor at a public university in Iraq has lost another paper just weeks after we reported he was up to 16 retractions for authorship manipulation, fake peer review and other problems.

Yasser Fakri Mustafa of the University of Mosul was a coauthor of the newly retracted article, a review of how aerosol boxes affected intubation during the COVID‐19 pandemic. He denied wrongdoing.

As stated in the retraction notice, online September 23, the article’s title matched an authorship ad posted on social media on March 9, 2022, eight months before the paper appeared in Taylor & Francis’ Expert Review of Medical Devices.

A peer-reviewed paper claimed a researcher was an expert in sex robots. He’s not.

What would you do if you discovered your name in a list of experts on sex robots despite having never studied sex robots?

That was the situation for one rather panicked researcher who reached out to us in late September after discovering his name among several singled out in a review article for the “greatest number of published works” on sex robots.

Published in February in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, the bibliometric analysis of the field aimed “to provide a clearer understanding of the issues surrounding sex robots,” the original article stated.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: