Avery Orrall

Weekend reads: Retraction counts by country; ‘zombie facts;’ false allegations fell president

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 450. There are more than 50,000 retractions in The Retraction Watch Database — which is now part of Crossref. The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker now contains more than 300 titles. And have you seen our leaderboard of authors with the most retractions lately — or our list of top 10 most highly cited retracted papers? What about The Retraction Watch Mass Resignations List — or our list of nearly 100 papers with evidence they were written by ChatGPT?

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

Who you calling ‘bignose’? Shark paper corrected after species mix-up

Bignose shark
*NWFblogs/Flickr (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)*

A case of mistaken identity among sharks has led to a correction that changed, among other content, an article’s title, its abstract and the discussion section.

The paper, published in February 2024 in Environmental Biology of Fishes, was originally titled “Expanded vertical niche for two species of pelagic sharks: depth range extension for the dusky shark Carcharhinus obscurus and novel twilight zone occurrence by the silky shark Carcharhinus falciformi.”

But after re-examining the data, the authors concluded: “the dusky shark from the published paper was misidentified, and instead, it is most likely a bignose shark,” according to an October 2024 correction to the article.

Sage slaps more than 100 papers from one journal with expressions of concern

The Sage journal American Surgeon has issued a mass expression of concern for 116 articles.

The expression of concern states the journal “was made aware” of “concerning author activity” on the articles.

Sage is no stranger to mass editorial actions. In 2023, the publisher pulled large tranches of papers at least three times, and last year it retracted over 450 papers from a journal the company had acquired from IOS Press. The publisher was one of the first to begin retracting papers in bulk, primarily to combat manipulated peer review.

Weekend reads: ‘Lack of informed consent’ in DNA data; protecting the ‘prey’ of predatory journals; another ivermectin-COVID-19 retraction

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

Meet Retraction Watch’s two new journalists
Elsevier denies AI use in response to evolution journal board resignations
Biotech company agrees to pay $4 million to settle data falsification allegations
Science paper by Toronto lab retracted
The 14 universities with publication metrics researchers say are too good to be true

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

The 14 universities with publication metrics researchers say are too good to be true

Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences

More than a dozen universities have used “questionable authorship practices” to inflate their publication metrics, authors of a new study say. One university even saw an increase in published articles of nearly 1,500% in the last four years.

The study, published January 5 in Quantitative Science Studies, “intends to serve as a starting point for broader discussions on balancing the pressures of global competition with maintaining ethical standards in research productivity and authorship practice,” study authors Lokman Meho and Elie Akl, researchers at the American University of Beirut in Lebanon, told Retraction Watch.

Science paper by Toronto lab retracted

Anomalies in Figure 1 of a 2014 *Science* paper, a portion of which is shown here, is one of several in question in a retraction published in the January 10 *Science*. *Source*

A 2014 paper in Science by a lab in Toronto has been retracted after a December expression of concern raised “potential data integrity issues.”

The paper, “Mitosis Inhibits DNA Double-Strand Break Repair to Guard Against Telomere Fusions,” is from the lab of Daniel Durocher, a professor of molecular genetics at the University of Toronto.

The retraction notice, published today and signed by all of the original authors, reads, in part:

First paper retracted in string of studies using the wrong medication name

A scientific sleuth and a mother who nearly lost her daughter to a hormonal condition teamed up in January to flag a series of papers that misnamed a medication for pregnant women. They have recently started to see the fruits of their labors: one retraction and three corrections.

In 2014, Tara Skopelitis, a lab manager at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, was given weekly progesterone injections to prevent preterm birth for her daughter, as reported by STAT. Six years later, after her daughter showed symptoms of an unknown hormonal condition which still hasn’t been formally diagnosed, Skopelitis discovered she should have received synthetic progesterone variant 17α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate, often referred to as 17-OHPC, 17P, sold as Makena. When the drug wasn’t available, her doctor had ordered the wrong replacement from a compounding pharmacy. Skopelitis suspects her daughter’s condition could be a result of the mixup.

The confusion lies within the literature, Skopelitis says: Many clinical trials and papers refer to 17P as intramuscular progesterone, as if they are interchangeable or even the same compound.

Researcher whose work was plagiarized haunted by impostor emails

A researcher who posted on LinkedIn about a paper that plagiarized his work says he’s now the subject of an email campaign making false allegations about his articles.

In July, we reported that Sasan Sadrizadeh, researcher at KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, had his work plagiarized in a now-retracted paper.

“In what seems to be a direct response to our efforts,” as Sadrizadeh wrote in a recent LinkedIn post, his bosses, colleagues, and journals have been inundated with emails from impostors, accusing Sadrizadeh of misuse of funds and calling for the removal of his articles. At least one journal editor seems to have taken the allegations seriously.

Journal retracts article for plagiarized images after trying to gag researcher who complained

The journal Cureus retracted an article for plagiarized images after questioning the motives of the researcher who said her images were taken.

The researcher, who asked to remain anonymous, first emailed Cureus, an open-access journal Springer Nature acquired in 2022, on August 1. She said she noticed images in the October 2023 paper, “Pediatric Acute Dacryocystitis and Orbital Cellulitis With Concurrent COVID-19 Infection: A Case Report,” came from a lecture she posted online and later removed.

“The images used in this article were edited and presented under a fabricated clinical scenario” and had been used without her permission, the researcher wrote in an email seen by Retraction Watch. She requested the journal retract the article. She also provided what she said were her original images, which were replicated in Figure 1 of the paper, and copied the corresponding author of the article.

Sleuths spur cleanup at journal with nearly 140 retractions and counting

A journal that lost its impact factor in June is in the midst of a cleanup operation, issuing nearly 140 retractions so far this year.

The mass retractions began over a year after sleuths Alexander Magazinov and Guillaume Cabanac first raised concerns about the presence of suspicious citations, tortured phrases and undisclosed use of AI in the journal’s articles.

Cabanac and Magazinov have now flagged 1,850 articles from the journal, Springer Nature’s Environmental Science and Pollution Research (ESPR), with the Problematic Paper Screener, which looks for evidence of bad practices in academic papers.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: