Ivan Oransky

Researcher leaves Wistar Institute as he retracts a Nature paper

A group of researchers at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia have retracted a paper in Nature for data discrepancies and inconsistencies — as well as missing data. And one of the corresponding authors has left the institution, Retraction Watch has learned.

The paper, “IspH inhibitors kill Gram-negative bacteria and mobilize immune clearance,” was published in December 2020 and has been cited 7 times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science.

Here’s the notice:

Weekend reads: Vaccine-myocarditis preprint withdrawn; are citations worth $100,000 each?; the lesson of ivermectin

Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, we could really use your help. Would you consider a tax-deductible donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance.

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

Four papers by Athira CEO earn expressions of concern
Alzheimer’s diagnosis paper retracted for failure to disclose conflicts of interest, other issues
Study comparing hydroxychloroquine and antiviral drug for COVID-19 retracted
“[T]hese shit comments”: Author of a nonsense paper responds on PubPeer
“Fabulous document”, “very helpful guidance”: Sleuths react to recommendations for handling image integrity issues
Authors of a case report on COVID-19 in a prisoner say they ‘are unsatisfied with the quality of [their] work’

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 160. And there are now more than 30,000 retractions in our database.

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

“Fabulous document”, “very helpful guidance”: Sleuths react to recommendations for handling image integrity issues

Retraction Watch readers are likely familiar with the varied — and often unsatisfying — responses of journals to scientific sleuthing that uncovers potential problems with published images. Some editors take the issues seriously, even hiring staff to respond to allegations and vet manuscripts before publication. Some, however, take years to handle the allegations, or ignore them altogether.

Recently, STM’s Standards and Technology Committee (STEC) appointed a working group to look at these issues At a webinar last week, the group — including members from the American Chemical Society, Elsevier, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis, Wiley, and other publishers — released a draft of their recommendations, which:

Weekend reads: The ‘plagiarism hunter’; targeting academics over grant fraud; data manipulation at the World Bank

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

Publisher investigating all of an author’s papers following reporting by Retraction Watch
Highly criticized paper on dishonesty retracted
Authors who don’t disclose conflicts of interest? “[W]e cannot force them to do so,” says editor
Former Emory division director committed misconduct, says federal watchdog
Highly cited paper marks 14th retraction for Chinese Academy of Sciences researcher

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 155. And there are now 30,000 retractions in our database.

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

Former Emory division director committed misconduct, says federal watchdog

A cancer researcher who was a former division director at Emory University in Atlanta “engaged in research misconduct by knowingly, intentionally, and/or recklessly falsifying data” in a federal grant application and six published papers, according to new findings from the U.S. Office of Research Integrity.

Ya Wang, who retired from Emory a year ago, “falsified protein immunoblot data by reusing and relabeling the same images to represent different experimental conditions in mammalian tissue culture models of DNA damage and repair in eighteen (18) figure panels in eleven (11) figures in one (1) grant application and six (6) published papers,” the ORI said.

Wang “neither admits nor denies” ORI’s findings of misconduct, according to the agency’s report on the case. She agreed to a four-year ban on any federal funding, and to correct or retract four papers:

Publisher investigating all of an author’s papers following reporting by Retraction Watch

Less than two weeks after Retraction Watch reported that an abstract from 2019 included what appeared to be text from plagiarism detection software, the publisher has subjected the paper to an expression of concern and is investigating all of the lead author’s papers.

The paper,”Identification of Selective Forwarding Attacks in Remote locator Network utilizing Adaptive Trust Framework,” appeared as part of an IOP Conference Series. Nick Wise, an engineering graduate student at Cambridge, flagged the incident on Twitter, which IOP Publishing told us they had not yet heard about.

Today, IOP Publishing spokesperson Rachael Harper told Retraction Watch:

Weekend reads: A ‘hoax paper’ author resigns; Uyghur DNA papers retracted; a year without p values

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

Introducing two sites that claim to sell authorships on scientific papers
Authors object after Springer Nature journal cedes to publisher Frontiers’ demand for retraction
University orders PhD supervisor to retract paper that plagiarized his student
Obama intelligence official shortchanged grad student in 2015 book
‘Misleading and inaccurate information’: Rocky tenure for high mountain paper as complaints prompt retraction

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 154. And there are now 30,000 retractions in our database.

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

University orders PhD supervisor to retract paper that plagiarized his student

A researcher at the University of Newcastle in Australia plagiarized a former student’s thesis, according to a summary of a university investigation obtained by Retraction Watch.

Andy Eamens, who at least until recently was an agronomy researcher at Newcastle, published a paper in 2019 that included work by Kate Hutcheon, whose PhD work he supervised, without any credit. Hutcheon, who earned her PhD in 2017, contacted the journal, Agronomy, an MDPI title, in November 2019.

The journal, Hutcheon told Retraction Watch, “forwarded a copy of my complaint directly to my PhD supervisor (without my consent). Thankfully they also forwarded me a copy of his response.” In what we found a bit confusing, to say the least, Eamens wrote, in part:

Authors object after Springer Nature journal cedes to publisher Frontiers’ demand for retraction

The authors of a paper taking a major database to task for including papers from allegedly predatory journals are objecting to the retraction of the article, which followed a request by one of the publishers mentioned in the analysis.

And at least one of the journal’s editorial board members is considering resigning over the move.

The paper, “Predatory publishing in Scopus: evidence on cross-country differences,” was published in Scientometrics, a Springer Nature journal, on February 7. It used Jeffrey Beall’s now-defunct list of allegedly predatory publishers to identify relevant journals. The next day, the study’s findings were the subject of a news story in Nature.

On May 6, Fred Fenter, chief executive editor of Frontiers, a publisher which figured in the analysis, sent Scientometrics editor Wolfgang Glänzel a letter, obtained by Retraction Watch, demanding that the paper be retracted immediately. Much of the letter is a critique of Beall’s list, which has certainly come under fire before. Fenter — whose criticisms of of the list prompted an investigation by Beall’s university, after which Beall eventually retired — writes:

Introducing two sites that claim to sell authorships on scientific papers

Two years ago, we reported on a website based in Russia that claimed to have brokered authorships for more than 10,000 researchers. (Apparently, neither our coverage nor a cease-and-desist letter from Clarivate Analytics had any effect on the site’s operations.)

And now, we bring you news of what look like two very similar sites — one out of Iran, and one out of Latvia.

The site in Iran, Teziran.org, claims to offer a variety of services, from help with immigration issues to scientific training. What caught our eye in particular was a section of the site (pictured above) that lists a number of “articles ready for acceptance” — at least by Google Translate:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: