Adam Marcus

Iran’s science minister earns four retractions

The science minister of Iran has amassed four retractions recently over concerns about the authenticity of chemicals used in the studies.

Mohammad Ali Zolfigol, who has held the post of Minister of Science, Research and Technology for more than a year, is first or second author in all four of the papers, which appeared between 2015 and 2016 in journals published by the UK Royal Society of Chemistry.

The authors acknowledge that they had been using the wrong substance – a molecule called tricyanomethane – claiming to have purchased a fake form of the chemical. But Zolfigol and his colleagues object to the retractions, on grounds that aren’t clear.

Elsevier journal retracts nearly 50 papers because they were each accepted on the “positive advice of one illegitimate reviewer report”

An Elsevier journal has retracted 47 papers that an accomplished sleuth says appear to have been generated by a paper mill.

The articles, by researchers from countries including China, Kazakhstan and Russia appeared in Thinking Skills and Creativity.

Here’s a sample notice, for a paper titled “Steal like an artist: Connection between critical thinking and creativity of a future musician in a digital environment,” whose authors come from Shandong University of Science and Technology and, somewhat improbably, the Department of Music at the Shandong Institute of Petroleum and Chemical Technology:

A grad student finds a ‘typo’ in a psychedelic study’s script that leads to a retraction

Sometime after it was published, Paul Lodder, a graduate student at the University of Amsterdam, had been trying without success to replicate the findings of a 2020 paper in Scientific Reports.

The original article was written by a group led by Rubén Herzog, of the Universidad de Valparaíso in Chile. Titled “A mechanistic model of the neural entropy increase elicited by psychedelic drugs,” the paper purported to help illuminate what happens in the brain under the influence of substances like LSD.

But the findings of the study wouldn’t replicate. And unlike some researchers who might blow off criticism of their work, or blame the replicators for the failure, Herzog sent Lodder the scripts his team had used.

Lodder found the problem quickly. As Herzog related to Retraction Watch, Lodder (whose schedule has been challenging the past few weeks as we’ve played phone tag) [See update on this post.]:

Frankincense extract paper is 30th retracted by former MD Anderson researcher who once threatened to sue Retraction Watch

A cancer researcher in Texas who once threatened to sue Retraction Watch is up to 30 retractions, the latest involving a 2011 article which earned a correction the following year.

The paper, “Boswellic Acid Suppresses Growth and Metastasis of Human Pancreatic Tumors in an Orthotopic Nude Mouse Model through Modulation of Multiple Targets,” came from the lab of Baharat Aggarwal, formerly of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, in Houston.

The paper, which was corrected in 2012, has received 50 citations, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science, all of which came after the correction. The latest of these references appears to be a recent preprint claiming to find that frankincense extract helps treat breast cancer.

Per the retraction notice:

Journal says ivermectin study met standard for ‘credible science’

A journal editor is defending his decision to publish a new paper showing that ivermectin can prevent Covid-19, despite more than a dozen retractions of such papers from the literature.

The article, “Regular Use of Ivermectin as Prophylaxis for COVID-19 Led Up to a 92% Reduction in COVID-19 Mortality Rate in a Dose-Response Manner: Results of a Prospective Observational Study of a Strictly Controlled Population of 88,012 Subjects,” appeared in Cureus August 31.

The authors included Pierre Kory, a critical care specialist better known as the leader of the Front-Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance, based in Madison, Wis. Kory has been an active promoter of the use of ivermectin and other questionable remedies for Covid-19 – even testifying before Congress about his ideas – although his most high-profile paper on the topic was retracted last November.

Didier Raoult papers earn expressions of concern as criminal investigation gets underway

A leading microbiology society has issued expressions of concern for ~~four~~ six papers from a group in France led by the controversial scientist Didier Raoult, whose lab is under investigation by the University of Aix Marseille for “serious malfunctions.”

The move follows the release last month of a 157-page report by investigators related to France’s Health Ministry ~~the university~~ into Raoult’s research and news that a criminal investigation is underway.

As we and others have reported, Raoult was among the most prominent floggers of the notion that hydroxychloroquine could treat COVID-19. But while his studies of the drug might have influenced certain American politicians, they and other research from his group haven’t withstood the scrutiny of his peers.

He also has attempted to silence critics of his work, notably Elisabeth Bik, using legal threats and harassment.

Publisher says it will investigate allegations despite editor’s refusal

A journal whose editor who has refused to investigate strong claims of misconduct by an anonymous whistleblower appears to be investigating anyway following our coverage of the case. Meanwhile, the editor has found other ways to express his lack of concern for nonsense that may appear in the journal’s pages.

As we reported late last month, Guido Schmitz, the editor in chief of the International Journal of Materials Research has been rock-ribbed in his refusal to investigate claims of misconduct brought by the data sleuth Artemisia Stricta. The reason: Artemisia refused to divulge their identity – which, to Schmitz, evidently appears to be a more grievous sin than research misconduct itself.

Schmitz even went as far in emails to us to state that researchers are free to publish “bullshit and fiction.”

An editor on why he ignores anonymous whistleblowers – and why authors are free to publish ‘bullshit and fiction’

Just over a decade ago, in the second year of Retraction Watch’s existence, we wrote a column in the now-defunct Lab Times urging journal editors to stop ignoring complaints from anonymous whistleblowers. The Committee on Publication Ethics didn’t think anonymity was a problem as long as the complaints were evidence-based, so why should editors?

And journals have come a long way over the last decade in this regard. Some retraction notices even credit anonymous – and even pseudonymous – correspondents.

Guido Schmitz, however, appears not to have gotten the memo.

Editors-in-chief of aging journal resign en masse after ‘impasse with the Anatomical Society and Wiley’

A journal regarded as the leader in its field is without editors after they resigned as a group earlier this month in a dispute over their workload and compensation.

On August 11, the four editors-in-chief of Aging Cell tendered their resignations to Wiley and the Anatomical Society, which together publish the monthly periodical. Explaining their decision in a letter dated August 23 and posted to Twitter by an account unrelated to the journal, the editors – Peter Adams, Julie Andersen, Adam Antobi, Vera Gorbunova, along with John Sedivy, the reviews editor – said they had reached the breaking point after trying to work with the publishers for the last “2-3 years” on “serious issues in running the journal.”

We were unable to immediately reach the editors or Wiley, but Adams retweeted the letter and asked his followers to “Please distribute.”

Penn maintains wall of silence over now-retired prof as retractions mount

A Springer Nature journal has retracted a 2017 paper on induced brain injuries in piglets over questions about the data – making us wonder if the animals weren’t essentially tortured (if the experiments truly took place) as part of someone’s misconduct.

Meanwhile, Springer Nature seems to have wiped its hands clean of the matter involving a paper from the lab of William Armstead, a now-retired pharmacy researcher at the University of Pennsylvania who is up to five retractions. The publisher agreed to refer any questions about the case to the main institution involved, a private university, meaning that readers and the public have little if any recourse to learn the truth unless it releases a report on the matter – which rarely happens.

No one at Penn has responded to repeated requests for comment from us. And even if they release a report, as we’ve written, the record of the misconduct might leave much to be desired.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: