Adam Marcus

Four papers by Athira CEO earn expressions of concern

Leen Kawas, President and CEO of Athira Pharma. (PRNewsfoto/Athira Pharma, Inc.)

A group of researchers at Washington State University has received four expressions of concern for papers whose findings underpin a publicly traded company founded by two of the most senior authors on the articles.

The studies, all of which appeared in the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, came from the labs of Joseph Harding, a medical chemist at Washington State, and his colleague Jay Wright. Published between 2011 and 2014, the four articles report on a molecule called angiotensin IV, work which Harding and Wright leveraged to spin-off Athira, a Seattle-based biotech firm developing treatments for conditions including Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease.

The CEO of Athira, formerly known as M3 Biotechnology, is Leen Kawas, once a PhD student at Washington State whose 2011 doctoral dissertation provided figures for this fraught 2011 article in JPET, which earned a correction in 2014. Earlier this year, as STAT reported, Kawas was forced to take a leave of absence from the company over concerns that she altered images in several papers. And there has been other scrutiny of the company.

Alzheimer’s diagnosis paper retracted for failure to disclose conflicts of interest, other issues

A surgery journal has retracted a 2021 article by a group of researchers in Brazil for failure to disclose a key conflict of interest and other problems.

“Intracranial pressure waveform changes in Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment” — which now seems to have disappeared entirely from the journal’s site — appeared in Surgical Neurology International in July. Led by Estela Barbosa Ribeiro, a nurse at the Federal University of São Carlos, in São Paulo, the article, still available and not marked retracted on PubMed Central, purported to find that measuring intracranial pressure:

Study comparing hydroxychloroquine and antiviral drug for COVID-19 retracted

The authors of a study comparing hydroxychloroquine and the antiviral agent favipiravir as treatments for COVID-19 have lost the paper after post-publication peer review determined that the data did not support the conclusions.

“Safety and efficacy of favipiravir versus hydroxychloroquine in management of COVID-19: A randomised controlled trial” appeared in March in Scientific Reports, a Nature title. The authors, from institutions in Egypt, reported that:

“[T]hese shit comments”: Author of a nonsense paper responds on PubPeer

A conference proceedings for the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) has retracted a 2021 paper which appears to have been produced in part by the fake article generator SCIGen — an allegation the corresponding author denies.

“Estimate The Efficiency Of Multiprocessor’s Cash Memory Work Algorithms” appeared earlier this year in the 2021 IEEE International Conference on Smart Information Systems and Technologies, where it came to the attention of Guillaume Cabanac and Cyril Labbé.

As readers of this blog might recall, Cabanac, Labbé and their colleague Alexander Magazinov recently wrote a preprint about how mangled translations into English — “tortured phrases,” in their words — can indicate that an article has been churned out by a paper mill.

Authors of a case report on COVID-19 in a prisoner say they ‘are unsatisfied with the quality of [their] work’

The authors of a 2020 case study of COVID-19 have retracted the work because they were “unsatisfied with the quality” of the work. Nor, judging from the retraction notice, should they — or the journal that published the report — be.

The article was titled “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection Mimicking as Pulmonary Tuberculosis in an Inmate” and was written by a group led by Hina Akbar, of the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, in Memphis. According to the abstract:

Here, we describe a case of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a low prevalence area which was initially diagnosed and managed as pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) in a high-risk inmate population. These ambiguous presentations can lead to mismanagement of such patients resulting in potentially fatal outcomes and public health crises in confined facilities. This also highlights the significance of a high index of clinical suspicion for SARS-CoV-2 especially in high risk and vulnerable populations.

That might be true, but evidently the article did a poor job of making the argument. The nostra culpa retraction notice states:

Highly cited paper marks 14th retraction for Chinese Academy of Sciences researcher

A chemistry journal has retracted a 2014 paper by a group from China after the first author on the article copped to having Photoshopped a figure — marking the second retraction for members of the group in less than a week and the 14th for one of the authors.

The paper, “Polymer nanodots of graphitic carbon nitride as effective fluorescent probes for the detection of Fe3+ and Cu2+ ions,” appeared in Nanoscale and was written by a group with ties to Soochow University, Hefei University of Technology and the Chinese Academy of Sciences, in Beijing, and Yale University. The first author was Shouwei Zhang, whose name appears on at least seven papers flagged on PubPeer for problematic images.

The senior author was Xiangke Wang, whose tally of PubPeer entries is now at 76 and who now has 14 retractions. One of those, the 2013 article “Superior adsorption capacity of hierarchical iron oxide@magnesium silicate magnetic nanorods for fast removal of organic pollutants from aqueous solution,” was retracted from the Journal of Materials Chemistry A on September 13, with the following notice:

Authors who don’t disclose conflicts of interest? “[W]e cannot force them to do so,” says editor

Nanshan Zhong, by 东方(美國之音記者) via Wikimedia

Do journal editors have the responsibility to ensure authors are disclosing relevant conflicts of interest?

According to the editor of one Elsevier journal, the answer is “no.”

The case marks the second time this year that the editor of an Elsevier journal has been less than dogged about enforcing the company’s clearly stated policies about undisclosed conflicts.

Highly criticized paper on dishonesty retracted

The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) has retracted a highly influential 2012 paper by Dan Ariely, a behavioral economist at Duke University whose work has been called into question over concerns about the data in some of his publications.

The retraction wasn’t unexpected. Ariely and his colleagues said last month that they would be pulling the article, “Signing at the beginning makes ethics salient and decreases dishonest self-reports in comparison to signing at the end,” in the wake of revelations that some of the data in the study appear to have been fabricated.

As Stephanie Lee of BuzzFeed reported in August:

‘Misleading and inaccurate information’: Rocky tenure for high mountain paper as complaints prompt retraction

A journal has retracted a study that sought to dispel fears about the risks — real and inflated — associated with travel to high altitudes after receiving complaints from a group of experts who found fault with the paper.

That’s the official version. The backstory is somewhat more complex.

“Acute Mountain Sickness, High Altitude Pulmonary Edema, and High Altitude Cerebral Edema: A view from the High Andes” was published online in February 2021 in Respiratory Physiology & Neurobiology, an Elsevier title. The authors were Gustavo Zubieta-Calleja and his daughter, Natalia Zubieta-DeUrioste, of the High Altitude Pulmonary and Pathology Institute in La Paz, Bolivia — which, at nearly 12,000 feet above sea level, is no stranger to hypoxia.

According to the abstract:

Obama intelligence official shortchanged grad student in 2015 book

A top intelligence official in the Obama administration failed to adequately credit a research assistant for a 2015 book but eventually relented after the grad student refused to back down about the slight, Retraction Watch has learned.

Gregory Treverton, who served as chairman of President Obama’s National Intelligence Council, wrote “National Intelligence and Science: Beyond the Great Divide in Analysis and Policy” with Wilhelm Agrell, a Swedish political scientist. At the time, Treverton was at the RAND Corporation, and he enlisted the help of Tyler Lippert, then a student at the Pardee RAND Graduate School and a RAND analyst.

According to Lippert, Treverton used extensive passages of text that Lippert provided to him with no acknowledgment that Lippert had done the work. Emails between Lippert and Treverton obtained by Retraction Watch show an increasingly acrimonious exchange between the two scholars.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: