Avery Orrall

‘Tin Man Syndrome,’ five other case studies retracted following Retraction Watch coverage

*A comparison of the images and an overlay, provided by a sleuth.*

A journal has retracted a study on ‘Tin Man Syndrome’ plagiarized from a decade-old April Fools’ joke — which the author now admits was fake.

On August 15, we wrote about a “rare case report” published in Medicine in which authors claimed they had encountered a case of “ectopia cordis interna” and described an asymptomatic man with his heart located in his abdomen. Sleuths believed the case report plagiarized images from a 2015 satirical paper describing a condition of the same name.

A week later on August 22, Medicine, published by Wolters Kluwer, retracted the paper and five others — all published this year — with shared authors. None of the papers have been cited, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.

The retracted papers are:

Papers continue to face retractions for failure to license pricy tool

Two journals have retracted papers this year for unauthorized use of a controversial scale whose creator has been known to license use of the questionnaire for six-figure sums – and to aggressively pursue those payments from researchers he claims have misused the instrument without prior approval.

The Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS) is named for its creator, Donald Morisky, now a professor emeritus in community health at UCLA. As the name implies, the measure allows researchers to assess patients’ adherence to drug regimens.

Morisky made a business out of licensing the scale and demanding steep fees for researchers who failed to obtain the proper permissions, as we reported in Science in 2017. Researchers who cannot afford the payments Morisky and his business associate demand have been forced to retract their work.

Embattled journal Cureus halts peer reviewer suggestions

The mega-journal Cureus is eliminating author suggestions for peer reviewers, a prompt that is standard practice at some journals when submitting a manuscript.

According to an email sent August 25 to current and past peer reviewers, the move is “due to the potential conflict of interest” that comes from authors suggesting reviewers who may be mentors and colleagues.

Reviewers recommended by authors are more likely to give positive feedback on papers. And such recommendations gave way to such practices as peer review rings and self-peer review, vulnerabilities that started to thrive more than a decade ago.

‘No misconduct here’: Author defends addendum that sleuth says is ‘inadequate’

A 23-year-old paper has received an addendum for “possible inadvertent errors” in the figures. But a sleuth says the update doesn’t address issues with the work.

The 2002 paper, which describes the behavior of Langerhans cells in normal and inflamed skin, was published in Nature Immunology and has been cited 774 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.

The article received a correction in 2003 to replace two “incorrect” figures. Over 20 years later, PubPeer commenter “Archasia belfragei” flagged issues with different figures, noting in December that some PCR bands were “more similar than expected.”

Cardiology researcher in Italy up to 17 retractions, most for duplication

A heart researcher from Italy has lost three papers because the articles duplicated work he had previously published. The retractions bring his tally to 17, all but one of which were for self-plagiarism.

The latest retractions for Renato De Vecchis were from the Journal of Clinical Medicine Research (JCMR). JCMR is published by Elmer Press and is not indexed in Clarivate’s Web of Science. De Vecchis most recently listed his affiliation as San Gennaro dei Poveri Hospital in Naples. He was previously at Elena d’Aosta, a health center in Naples. His published papers are all in cardiology research.

Richard Liu, the director and CEO of Elmer Press, told us JCMR “informed the related journals” of similarities between publications. He also said the journal never heard back from the authors but “since the contents overlapped are significant [sic],” the journal decided to retract the papers.

‘Tin Man Syndrome’ case plagiarized from hoax, sleuths say

On April Fools’ Day 10 years ago, radiologist Matt Skalski took part in a website’s annual challenge to prank the radiology community by posting the case of a man with “ectopia cordis interna,” or “Tin Man Syndrome.” Unlike the fictitious metal character from the Wizard of Oz, Skalski’s satirical patient had a heart — in his abdomen.

Now a group of researchers say they encountered the disease in real life, in a 22-year-old patient they claim has “no significant medical history.”

The researchers based in Iraq published their “rare case report” in Medicine in July.

Genomics pioneer George Church earns first retraction for anti-aging gene therapy paper

A paper coauthored by geneticist George Church has been retracted following an internal review at a university where several coauthors are based.

The article appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2022. The work supports an anti-aging gene therapy developed by BioViva, a company for which Church serves as an adviser. The paper’s authors claim cytomegalovirus (CMV) can be a gene therapy vector for a treatment for “aging-associated decline” that can be inhaled or injected monthly.

The work has been cited 41 times, two of which are citations from corrections to the article, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.

High school student who volunteered at NASA-sponsored lab gets retraction

An astronomical society journal has issued its first retraction in its 10-year history — for work done by a NASA researcher and a high school student. The duo set out to confirm an astrophysics law using calculations that assumed the law was true.

The journal, Research Notes of the AAS, is published by the American Astronomical Society. It is not peer-reviewed, nor is it indexed in Clarivate’s Web of Science. The retraction has prompted the journal to revise its policies on reviewing work before publication.

One of the two authors on the retracted 2024 article is Jadon Lam, who at the time was a student at Pleasant Grove High School in Elk Grove, California. Lam is now at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena studying astrophysics, according to his LinkedIn profile.

AI research journal with sham board, metrics holds researcher’s paper hostage

A journal purporting to be “cited by esteemed scholars and scientists all around the world” claims a false impact factor and attempts to charge authors a fee for withdrawing articles, Retraction Watch has learned. And the editor in chief publicly disavows any relationship with the title on his website.

The International Journal of Swarm Intelligence and Evolutionary Computation, or IJSIEC, claims to publish research on robotics, AI, “bacterial forging [sic],” bioinformatics and computing, among other topics.

A Retraction Watch reader brought the journal to our attention earlier this month. The researcher had submitted a paper to the journal but then noticed some red flags. Among them: One of the two listed editors-in-chief, Qiangfu Zhao, states on his website, “some journals are using my name to attract academic papers. I have no relation with these journals.” Zhao, a professor at the University of Aizu in Aizuwakamatsu, Japan, confirmed to us he has “no relation with this journal.”

Misconduct investigation at U.S. military university uncovers image duplication

Authors affiliated with a federal health sciences university have lost three papers this year for image duplication following an investigation by the institution. And another journal has confirmed it will retract a fourth paper by some of the same authors.

The “internal research misconduct investigation” conducted by the Uniformed Services University, or USU, in Bethesda, Md., found “several falsified or inappropriately duplicated images” and “images from previously published articles,” according to two of the retraction notices. USU, an institution focused on military medicine and part of the U.S. Department of Defense, acknowledged our multiple requests for comment about the investigation but did not provide a statement.

In January, Retraction Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request about the investigation. The Department of Defense acknowledged our request on January 7, noting the agency has 4,552 open requests that are processed in the order in which they are received.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: