Avery Orrall

Despite new retractions, suspect organ transplant papers remain in the literature

Six years after researchers called for the retraction of more than 400 papers about organ transplantation amid suspicion the organs used in the studies came from executed Chinese prisoners, journals are still working to clear the record.

Although more than 40 papers were retracted or otherwise flagged shortly after the 2019 study was published, by our count, only 44 of the 445 papers have been retracted to date. At least 17 of the articles marked with expressions of concern in 2019-2020 remain as such.

The analysis, published in BMJ Open, found more than 400 studies of organ transplants in China that didn’t report whether the sources gave their consent for donation, nor assurances the organs involved did not come from executed prisoners. As reported by The Guardian in 2019, the study exposed “a mass failure of English language medical journals to comply with international ethical standards in place to ensure organ donors provide consent for transplantation.” Thirteen retractions this year directly cite the Rogers paper.

Exclusive: American Heart Association reviewing award to rocket scientist with seven retractions

The American Heart Association is reviewing its decision to give an award to the architect of a controversial theory that is the subject of ~~eight~~ seven retracted papers, Retraction Watch has learned. In the meantime, the researcher is using the award to contest several of the retractions.

The Paul Dudley White International Scholar Award “recognizes the team of authors with the highest-ranked scientific abstract from every participating country for each AHA scientific meeting,” according to the award website.

At its Basic Cardiovascular Sciences 2025 conference in July, the association gave the award for best abstract from India to work describing “Sanal flow choking” theory, which is named after lead author, V. R. Sanal Kumar, a professor of aerospace engineering at Amity University in New Delhi. As we have previously reported, some scientists have denounced the concept as “absolute nonsense” and “inaccurate and paradoxical” — and earlier this year, a journal said it “fundamentally violates” a law of thermodynamics.

Exclusive: Journal to retract Alzheimer’s study after investigation finds misconduct

A journal says it will retract a 2019 paper on an Alzheimer’s treatment after an institutional investigation found research misconduct, according to emails seen by Retraction Watch. The move comes four years after another investigation by the same university uncovered image duplication in a different paper by a similar group of authors.

The paper, published in Biological Psychiatry, describes the potential of an apoE antagonist for treatment in Alzheimer’s disease.

A 2019 news release by the University of South Florida, home to several of the researchers involved in the study, called the work “promising.” Lead author Darrell Sawmiller, an assistant professor at USF, said the study represented “the first time … we have direct evidence” apoE “acts as an essential molecule” in the mechanisms leading to Alzheimer’s.

A peer-reviewed paper claimed a researcher was an expert in sex robots. He’s not.

What would you do if you discovered your name in a list of experts on sex robots despite having never studied sex robots?

That was the situation for one rather panicked researcher who reached out to us in late September after discovering his name among several singled out in a review article for the “greatest number of published works” on sex robots.

Published in February in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, the bibliometric analysis of the field aimed “to provide a clearer understanding of the issues surrounding sex robots,” the original article stated.

Journal issues speedy retraction in less than a day for ‘inadvertent mistake’

We don’t know if it’s the fastest retraction ever, but the speed is nonetheless notable: A journal retracted a paper 22 hours after a sleuth raised concerns about the article.

On August 9 just before noon, John Loadsman, an anesthesiologist and journal editor in Australia, reached out to two journals to notify them of image similarities he had flagged on PubPeer.

Loadsman asked the authors to clarify the “apparent identity” of a figure in a 2023 paper in Experimental Biomedical Research. The figure resembled one in a different paper by the same authors “representing different experimental conditions,” he wrote in his PubPeer comment. The second paper appeared in Wiley’s International Journal of Endocrinology in 2019.

Former student who ran paper mill up to 11 retractions

A former bioinformatics student who operated a paper mill while at the University of Manchester has lost another paper, bringing his total to 11 retractions.

Sameer Quazi had been enrolled in the school’s “PGCert” program in clinical bioinformatics, as Retraction Watch reported in January when the university released a statement saying an investigation found he “was running a paper mill.” The investigation panel had requested the retraction of 10 papers, but didn’t say which ones.

Quazi’s most recent retraction, a 2023 paper on antimicrobial agents, appeared in the MDPI journal Antibiotics. According to the September 12 notice, the journal was “unable to verify the identity, contribution, or affiliations of a number of the authors listed on this manuscript, nor could the origins of the study be confirmed.” The paper has been cited twice, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.

Sleuth unearths citation, authorship issues at earth sciences journal

Carlos Conforti Ferreira Guedes, a geology professor at the Federal University of Paraná in Brazil, came across a paper in the Journal of South American Earth Sciences earlier this year with irrelevant, and in some cases nonexistent, references.

Made-up citations can indicate the use of generative AI in crafting the paper – but another detail caught his attention as particularly odd: The researchers on the paper, a study on the transformation of the Brazilian coastline, all listed affiliations in India. Guedes reached out to one of the editors-in-chief of the journal at the time, Andres Folguera, on March 10 to notify the journal about the issues.

As Guedes and his colleagues noted in a May 19 blog post on the Brazilian Association for Quaternary Studies (ABEQUA) website, “there were no citations of work conducted in Brazil or by researchers who had previously worked in the region.”

Authors defend retracted paper on vitamin D and COVID-19 called ‘deeply bizarre’ by critic

PLOS One has retracted a paper linking vitamin D levels and COVID-19 morbidity three years after a critic flagged the data in the study as “deeply bizarre.” The authors objected to the retraction, with one calling it “outrageous” and pointing to flaws in the published notice.

The article, which appeared in February 2022, claimed people with low levels of vitamin D were at increased risk for severe COVID-19 and were more likely to die of the disease than other patients. It has been cited 65 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.

The paper had a “huge, immediate impact,” said Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, a senior research fellow from the University of Wollongong in Australia, citing the fact that the paper had been viewed over 1 million times within six weeks of being published. The article joins others, many also flagged by Meyerowitz-Katz, purporting to find links between vitamin D intake and COVID-19 severity that have been retracted or removed.

Second study using ‘Tin Man Syndrome’ X-ray under scrutiny following Retraction Watch inquiry

An altered image posted as an April Fool’s joke (left) was used as a figure (right) in a 2021 paper in *Scientific Programming*.

Just as The Wonderful Wizard of Oz was the first of 14 books in a series, our recent coverage of a paper on “Tin Man syndrome” seems to have sequels. After we wrote about a case study describing a man with his heart in his abdomen retracted for plagiarizing images from an April Fools’ joke, a reader flagged yet another paper using the same image.

As we previously reported, the authors of a “rare case report” appearing in Medicine claimed they had encountered a case of a man with asymptomatic “ectopia cordis interna,” in which his heart was in his abdomen. After the article was retracted, the corresponding author admitted the photos had been taken from a 2015 April Fools’ paper in Radiopaedia describing the same (fictitious) condition.

Following that coverage, a reader did a reverse image search of the X-ray in both papers and found a 2021 article from Scientific Programming, published by Wiley. The study recommends a non-conventional ventilation option for treating neonatal respiratory distress syndrome. The paper has been cited twice, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.

When you discover you’re an author on a paper you’ve never seen

Learning a paper with your name on it has been published is typically something to celebrate. But for one climate scientist, a recent notification was the first he learned the manuscript even existed.

So instead of rejoicing, Jan Cermak, a researcher at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology in Germany, was busy writing to the journal Chemosphere about a paper he’d been credited with but never seen.

The paper, on meteorologic influences on air pollution in India, has been retracted after it became clear that a visiting fellow included Cermak as a coauthor without his permission.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: