A physiatrist in Italy has lost four publications this year after two groups of researchers raised concerns about his research. The physician, Marco Monticone, a professor at the University of Cagliari, had three papers pulled in 2022, as we reported at the time. Those retractions followed a critique by Cochrane researchers who analyzed data in … Continue reading Pain researcher in Italy up to seven retractions
Two years after a journal told sleuths it wouldn’t retract flawed papers, it changed course and pulled them. Mark Bolland, a researcher at the University of Auckland in New Zealand who is no stranger to unearthing academic wrongdoing, first sent complaints about one of the papers to The International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics (IJGO) … Continue reading Wiley journal retracts two papers it said were fine following criticism years ago
The journal a publication ethics watchdog threatened with sanctions for taking years to retract articles will pull four more related papers, Retraction Watch has learned. Last July, the Committee for Publication Ethics (COPE) sent a warning letter to Elsevier regarding 10 papers by Yoshihiro Sato and Jun Iwamoto, who hold positions four and six on … Continue reading Exclusive: Elsevier journal COPE threatened with sanctions will retract four more articles
An Elsevier journal has retracted seven articles by a prolific data fabricator – three and a half years after the publisher said it would retract 10 of his papers, and five months after the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) threatened the journal with sanctions for the delay. As we previously reported, the Journal of the … Continue reading Exclusive: COPE threatens Elsevier journal with sanctions for ‘clear breakdown’ before seven retractions
We are pleased to present an excerpt from The Predatory Paradox: Ethics, Politics, and Practices in Contemporary Scholarly Publishing by Amy Koerber, Jesse C. Starkey, Karin Ardon-Dryer, R. Glenn Cummins, Lyombe Eko, and Kerk F. Kee, published by Open Book Publishers, October 2023. In 2015, Johannes Bohannon, along with three coauthors, published an article titled … Continue reading A closer look at the ‘chocolate with high cocoa content’ hoax
In July 2017, we notified the Journal of Bone and Mineral Metabolism (JBMM) of concerns about a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in rats which featured, among other problems, extensive duplication of data in a separate publication, large numbers of discrepancies in the methods and results between the publications, and serious concerns about the governance and … Continue reading How many ducks do you need to line up to get a publication retracted?
An Elsevier journal has sat for two years on its decision to retract 10 papers by researchers with known misconduct issues, according to emails seen by Retraction Watch. The Journal of the Neurological Sciences had decided by June 2020 to retract the articles by Yoshihiro Sato and Jun Iwamoto, who are currently in positions four … Continue reading An Elsevier journal said it would retract 10 papers two years ago. It still hasn’t.
As long-time readers of this blog know, we’ve spilled more than a few pixels on the work of Donald Morisky. His Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS) has been a financial boon to himself — and the bane of many researchers who have been forced to either retract papers or pay Morisky what they consider to … Continue reading Scale whose copyright owner defends zealously falls under scrutiny — and journal takes two years to publish a critique
Retraction Watch readers may recall the names Jun Iwamoto and Yoshihiro Sato, who now sit in positions 3 and 4 of our leaderboard of retractions, Sato with more than 100. Readers may also recall the names Andrew Grey, Alison Avenell and Mark Bolland, whose sleuthing was responsible for those retractions. In a recent paper in … Continue reading ‘The notices are utterly unhelpful’: A look at how journals have handled allegations about hundreds of papers
Alison Avenell first came across The Yamaguchi Osteoporosis Study (YOPS) when she was working on a 2014 Cochrane Review on bone fractures. She cited the study but felt something was off about it. “I suppose, together with my collaborators over the years, we developed sort of antennae for rather suspicious looking studies,” Avenell, of the … Continue reading An influential osteoporosis study is “likely fraudulent” — but not retracted