Ivan Oransky

Science Majorana paper earns an expression of concern

Just months after Nature retracted a paper on the “Majorana” particle because other researchers found issues in the work, Science has placed an expression of concern on a different paper that suggested “a relatively easy route to creating and controlling [Majorana zero modes] MZMs in hybrid materials.”

If such particles exist, they could allow Microsoft — which employs some of the researchers involved in the work — to build a quantum computer. But scientists have suggested that the findings of various studies do not suggest the presence of Majorana particles.

The Science paper has been cited 29 times since it was published in 2020, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science. The EoC reads:

Weekend reads: Former dean sent herself threatening letters; what it costs to sue for defamation; what a highly cited paper is worth

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:

‘Tortured phrases’, lost in translation: Sleuths find even more problems at journal that just flagged 400 papers
Award-winning nursing researcher’s paper retracted for ‘failure to acknowledge the contribution of other researchers and the funding source’
Two years: That’s how long it took a PLOS journal to flag a paper after a sleuth raised concerns
Journals retract papers following publication of university investigation by Retraction Watch
Two Texas studies on COVID-19 retracted because ‘previously approved study protocols appear to violate IRB guidelines around prisoner research’
When a retraction notice leaves out important details: COVID-19, prisoners, and an IRB

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 147.

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

Journals retract papers following publication of university investigation by Retraction Watch

Two journals have retracted three papers by a former researcher at the University of Colorado Denver six weeks after Retraction Watch first revealed that the university had recommended correcting the research record in 2016. Another journal has issued an expression of concern for a paper flagged in the investigation.

Despite a recommendation that nine different papers be corrected and retracted, journals had, by last month, retracted just two papers by the researcher, Hari Koul, now at Louisiana State University, and corrected one. Koul, as we reported, had apparently failed to inform multiple journal editors of the need for corrections and retractions.

At the time, Jennifer Regala, the executive editor of the Journal of Urology, which just retracted two of Koul’s papers, told Retraction Watch: “We were not aware of these allegations, so of course these are of grave concern to us.” She said that the American Urological Association, which publishes the journal, planned to conduct its own investigation.

Weekend reads: Ivermectin study retracted; Sci-Hub and citations; animal welfare violations at chinchilla lab supplier

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

Elsevier says “integrity and rigor” of peer review for 400 papers fell “beneath the high standards expected”
‘In hindsight the mistake was quite stupid’: Authors retract paper on stroke
Researcher committed misconduct while at NIH, say institutes — but is allowed to publish a revised version of a paper
Paper from company claiming phototherapy could treat COVID-19 is retracted
‘Please don’t be afraid to talk about your errors and to correct them.’
JAMA journal retracts paper on masks for children

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 144.

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

JAMA journal retracts paper on masks for children

JAMA Pediatrics has retracted a paper claiming that children’s masks trap too-high concentrations of carbon dioxide a little more than two weeks after publishing it.

The paper, by Harald Walach and colleagues, came under fire immediately after it was published on June 30, and quickly earned an editor’s note. Walach had another paper — which claimed that COVID-19 vaccines caused two deaths for every three deaths they prevented — retracted just a few days later. He also lost an affiliation with a university in Poland.

Walach and his colleagues responded to critics of the JAMA Pediatrics paper earlier this month, as we reported. But the journals apparently found that response wanting, according to the retraction notice:

Weekend reads: How many scientists commit misconduct?; science ‘moved beyond peer review during the pandemic’; Juul pays for entire journal issue

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

‘They seem to mean business’: Cardiology journal flags papers cited hundreds of times
Authors of widely panned study of masks in children respond to critics
Researchers forfeit $10,000 award when paper’s findings can’t be replicated
Critique topples Nature paper on belief in gods
University terminates affiliation with researcher who had paper on COVID-19 vaccines retracted as mask study comes under scrutiny
Nature corrects a correction on conflicts of interest in fish farming paper
Publisher won’t retract most papers by chemist editor-in-chief who left university post under a cloud

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 139.

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

Authors of widely panned study of masks in children respond to critics

The authors of a paper claiming that children’s masks trap concentrations of carbon dioxide higher than allowable standards in Germany have responded to critics who said the study was plagued with poor methods and unreasonable conclusions.

As we reported earlier this week, the corresponding author of the paper, Harald Walach, had his affiliation with Poznan University in Poland terminated because of a different paper he had co-authored, in the journal Vaccines. That paper has been retracted.

In the response, which we’ve made available in full here, Walach and his co-authors on the masks paper in JAMA Pediatrics write that

University terminates affiliation with researcher who had paper on COVID-19 vaccines retracted as mask study comes under scrutiny

A researcher who co-authored a now-retracted paper claiming that two vaccinated people died of COVID-19 for every three deaths prevented has had an affiliation with a Polish university terminated.

Yesterday, Poznan University tweeted about the researcher, Harald Walach:

We wish to emphasize that the claims included in dr Harald Walach’s recent article in @Vaccines_MDPI do not represent the position of @PUMS_tweets. We find that the article lacked scientific diligence and proper methodology. Dr. Walach’s affiliation with PUMS was now terminated.
— Poznan University of Medical Sciences (@PUMS_tweets) July 6, 2021

Today, it confirmed the move in a statement:

Weekend reads: Fraud in gaming vs. fraud in science; ‘a scholarly screw-up of biblical proportions’; pregnant male rats

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

‘A fig leaf that doesn’t quite cover up’: Commission says philosopher engaged in ‘unacknowledged borrowings’ but not plagiarism
Britney Spears story prompts apology from Nature and author. Update.
Journal retracts paper claiming two deaths from COVID-19 vaccination for every three prevented cases. Earlier, and earlier still.
Ten journals denied 2020 Impact Factors because of excessive self-citation or “citation stacking”
A scientist critic was sued, and won — but did not emerge unscathed. This is his story.
How well do databases and journals indicate retractions? Hint: Inconsistently.

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 134.

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

Britney Spears story “remains as part of the publication record,” says Nature

A 2008 story in Nature about Britney Spears that prompted an apology from the author and the journal earlier this week “remains as part of the publication record,” Nature said in an editor’s note.

The story, titled “When Britney Spears comes to my lab,” appeared in a section of the journal called Nature Futures and refers to Spears “wearing a silver strapless stretch top that doesn’t show too much of her belly (unless she actually moves her arms), and black Capri pants with a little dip in the waistband.”

Spears, it said, would eventually go on to earn a PhD from Harvard and develop a treatment for diabetes. Before that, however, “Britney will pump out a lot of good data (she is something of a workaholic), but gradually, with her music, her intermittent marriages and pregnancies, not to mention her classes, the amount of time she spends in lab will begin to dwindle.”

In a note appended to the article sometime this week, following thousands of tweets and a Retraction Watch post, the editors write:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: