Avery Orrall

‘Kicking the can down the road’: Science flags insect meta-analysis based on allegedly buggy database

*An insect meta-analysis published in* Science in 2020 has been hit with an EOC. *(Photo credit: Aron Sousa)*

Science has issued a permanent expression of concern for a paper reporting a meta-analysis of a database including studies critics have said were “experimentally manipulated.”

The notice, published today, applies to a 2020 meta-analysis measuring population patterns of freshwater and terrestrial insects and predicting what might drive changes in population numbers. According to the notice, the move comes after critics raised concerns about a database, called InsectChange, on which the meta-analysis was based. The database itself was published in 2021 in Ecology, a journal of the Ecological Society of America.

The Science article has been cited 820 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. The Ecology paper has been cited 23 times.

Business management journal holds researcher’s paper hostage

A “scholarly business and management publication” is holding a researcher’s paper for ransom, requesting the author pay to withdraw the article.

The researcher submitted a manuscript in August to the Academy of Strategic Management Journal in August, thinking he had sent it to the Academy of Management Journal. He asked to remain anonymous for fear of seeming careless “rather than recognizing the real predatory nature” of the journal.

The journal’s homepage notes it is indexed in Scopus, but it was delisted in 2021, nor is it indexed in Clarivate’s Web of Science. Its most recent volume contains five single-author articles from nonexistent universities. None of the articles has a DOI or provides an email for the author.

Nature retracts paper for data manipulation by Ph.D. student

Nature has retracted a paper after an investigation at a U.K. institution found the first author — then a doctoral student — manipulated data.

The paper, which looked at the sensitivity of lung cancers to immunotherapy, appeared in April 2023 and has been cited 192 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.

The retraction notice published today states first author Kevin Ng was responsible for the manipulation in the paper, including manipulated data in several figures. At the time of the experiments, Ng was a Ph.D. student at the Francis Crick Institute in London under the supervision of co-corresponding author George Kassiotis.

Professor suspended after Japanese university finds fishy results in sushi paper

A university in Japan has suspended a fishery science professor for a month after its investigation found fabrication in a retracted paper on fish freezing.

According to the investigatory report, Iwate University scrutinized a retracted paper coauthored by six researchers at the school, including Chunhong Yuan, a professor of fishery systems science. Following the researchers’ inability to provide the investigating committee with appropriate records of the reported experiment, the inquiry found Yuan and two unnamed coauthors – a graduate student and an individual now retired – fabricated claims about the experimental conditions.

Yuan has been suspended for one month starting December 25, according to a press release. The university plans to administer additional training on research integrity for laboratory leaders, according to the report.

‘I have never been asked to review anything’: Editors resign from materials journal

Editors of a materials journal have resigned six years after the title was purchased by a publisher based in Canada, claiming the company “multiplied the number of publications while increasing prices at the expense of quality.”

Revue des Composites et des Matériaux Avancés (RCMA) was published by Lavoisier, a French firm, until late 2018. It was then purchased by the International Information and Engineering Technology Association (IIETA) “without anyone being informed,” former editor-in-chief Francis Collombet wrote in a January 5 resignation email signed by 22 other board members.

The resignation continues: “We, the members of the RCMA editorial board, can no longer serve as a guarantee for IIETA, which, by buying up quality journals, has multiplied the number of publications while increasing prices at the expense of quality.”

Data lost in a flood? The excuse checks out.

When two recent retraction notices mentioned data were “destroyed in a flood,” we were skeptical. We’ve seen water take the blame for missing data before.

In 2019, we wrote about a chemical engineer who said his suspicious data were lost in a laboratory flooding accident. The researcher lost nine papers as a result, as we previously covered. Three years earlier in 2016, researchers in Sri Lanka lost a paper after claiming they, too, had lost their data in a flood. We couldn’t verify the researchers’ claims.

But this time, thanks to a public records request, we’ve confirmed there was in fact a deluge at the researcher’s lab.

The BMJ retracts clinical trial for ‘severe’ discrepancies in randomization

The BMJ has retracted a paper on a clinical trial of different methods of vascular access during cardiac arrest after an expert raised concerns about the randomization in the trial.

The study, published in July 2024, reports the results of a trial comparing intravenous and intraosseous vascular access for treating people who experienced cardiac arrest. It has been cited 29 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.

The retraction marks the 13th The BMJ has issued since its first in 1989, according to the Retraction Watch Database.

World Bank report ‘removed for review’ of nonexistent references after Retraction Watch inquiry

A World Bank report on obesity trends with at least 14 fake references in the text has been removed from the website and is being reviewed by the organization following a Retraction Watch inquiry.

The report, “Nourishing Tomorrow: Addressing Obesity Through Food Systems in South Asia,” was published in March 2025 in the World Bank Group’s Open Knowledge Repository. The document describes an analysis of how different food systems contribute to rising rates of obesity in South Asian countries. Three of its four authors are employees of the World Bank.

Muhammad Azam first came across the report in a WhatsApp group for sports science research in Pakistan, he told us. Azam, of the Government College University Lahore, has studied the prevalence of sports science research published in predatory journals in that country. So when a group member shared that some publications Azam knew to be suspect had been cited in the report, he took a closer look and found several “problematic entries,” he told us.

Journal removes funding statement from hormone therapy paper without issuing correction

A Cell Press journal quietly removed part of a funding statement from a paper related to gender-affirming hormone therapy that the authors say was included in error. Experts called the move “worrying.”

The authors of the paper, which appeared in Cell Reports on September 23, gave estrogen therapy to male monkeys to better understand how hormone therapies used in gender clinics might affect the immune system.

The research drew attention from several conservative news organizations, some of which called the project “disturbing” and alleged the work cost millions of dollars in National Institutes of Health funding.

Nature paper retracted after one investigation finds data errors, another finds no misconduct

Nature has retracted a paper on melanoma after an investigation by the journal found issues with data that rendered certain results statistically insignificant. A separate institutional investigation concluded misconduct wasn’t involved, the lead author says.

The research behind the article, published in April 2016, was conducted in the lab of Ashani Weeraratna, then at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia. The paper has been cited 332 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. The study investigated how the tumor microenvironment affected the spread of young versus aged cells.

An editorial investigation found some results in a figure were “no longer statistically significant, which affects the conclusions about therapy resistance,” according to the October 29 retraction notice. The inquiry also found “several errors in image and source data consistency,” as well as errors with the sample numbers given in the original study.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: