Ivan Oransky

Weekend reads: Stem cell trouble?; retractions of articles on a newborn’s death; facial recognition papers draw scrutiny

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:

Co-authors of paper on COVID-19 and jade amulets blame ‘the online press’ and social media for misinterpretation in retraction letter
Two and a half years after findings of misconduct, stem cell researchers up to 19 retractions
Author initiates “a legal process” against a journal and its publisher after a retraction, expressions of concern
Publisher infected twice with the same anti-vaccine article
Science retracts paper co-authored by high-profile scientist and former Dutch minister
Nature Communications looking into paper on mentorship after strong negative reaction

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 39.

Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Two and a half years after findings of misconduct, stem cell researchers up to 19 retractions

A group of researchers at Aichi Gakuin University in Nagoya, Japan, continues to lose papers for duplication of images and text from their previous work, and is now up to 19 retractions.

Please see an update on this post.

Here’s a typical notice, for “Bone morphogenetic protein-induced cell differentiation involves Atg7 and Wnt16 sequentially in human stem cell-derived osteoblastic cells,” a paper published in 2016 in Experimental Cell Research, an Elsevier title:

Co-authors of paper on COVID-19 and jade amulets blame ‘the online press’ and social media for misinterpretation in retraction letter

The co-authors of a paper that claimed jade amulets might prevent COVID-19 have tried to distance themselves from the work, in a letter to the co-editor of the journal that published it.

In fact, the first author, Moses Bility of the University of Pittsburgh, says of his co-authors:

Weekend reads: Hydroxychloroquine champion faces ethics charges; a serial plagiarist in philosophy; another author reaches 100 retractions

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

Journals flag concerns in three dozen papers by nutrition researchers
Journal drops the ball as it tries to juggle an embargo request and Elsevier’s temporary removal policy
Author blames “multitasking dementia” for duplicated cancer paper
Journal that published paper about a black hole at the center of Earth sinks into the void at a leading government database
Researcher leaves post at Australian university years after papers come under scrutiny

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 38.

Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Journal that published paper about a black hole at the center of Earth sinks into the void at a leading government database

A black hole, not at the center of the Earth (via Wikimedia)

The Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences, which retracted five papers recently, including one claiming that there was a black hole at the center of Earth, will no longer be indexed in a heavily used U.S. government database of journals.

According to the journal’s index page at PubMed Central (PMC), part of the U.S. National Library of Medicine, “The journal no longer participates in PMC.” Volumes of the journal from 2019 and earlier will remain.

Mirko Spiroski, the founding editor of the journal, did not respond to a request for comment.

Researcher leaves post at Australian university years after papers come under scrutiny

Three years after work from his lab was the subject of “serious allegations,” a professor at Deakin University in Australia has left his post, Retraction Watch has learned.

In an October 6, 2020 letter to staff at Deakin’s School of Medicine obtained by Retraction Watch, Dean Gary Rogers writes that Jagat Kanwar, who joined the school’s faculty in 2006, would be leaving effective October 16. Rogers continues:

Weekend reads: ‘The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Scholarly Research Integrity;’ amulet-COVID-19 paper retracted; bad science on voter fraud

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

Nanoscience researcher loses four papers for image manipulation, forged authors
Authors earn praise — but a “poorly worded” retraction notice — for flagging their errors
Why duplicate publications matter: A retraction notice goes above and beyond
Researchers tried to correct a figure after questions on PubPeer. Then the real trouble started.

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 38.

Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Weekend reads: A peer review murder mystery for Halloween; learning from #medbikini; inside the publishing ring that linked COVID-19 and 5G

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

Paper suggesting vitamin D might protect against COVID-19 earns an expression of concern
Widely cited COVID-19-masks paper under scrutiny for inaccurate stat
Dear journal: Here’s the information you left out of your retraction notice. You’re welcome.
Following Retraction Watch and PubPeer posts, journal upgrades correction to a retraction
Researchers publish the same COVID-19 paper three times
Amulets may prevent COVID-19, says a paper in Elsevier journal. (They don’t.)
Our bads: Publisher error leads to double retractions for psych researchers

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 37.

Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Amulets may prevent COVID-19, says a paper in Elsevier journal. (They don’t.)

Sometimes, we just don’t know what to say.

So we’ll let the people of Twitter comment on a paper titled “Can Traditional Chinese Medicine provide insights into controlling the COVID-19 pandemic: Serpentinization-induced lithospheric long-wavelength magnetic anomalies in Proterozoic bedrocks in a weakened geomagnetic field mediate the aberrant transformation of biogenic molecules in COVID-19 via magnetic catalysis,” claiming that

Following Retraction Watch and PubPeer posts, journal upgrades correction to a retraction

A year ago, we posted on the case of a paper in the Journal of Cell Science in which editors:

allowed a group of researchers in Italy to correct a 2016 paper with questionable images after a faculty member in their institution — and a frequent co-author of the group’s — said his investigation found no reason to doubt their integrity.

At the time, the journal told us they were unaware that Fulvio Magni — to whom they were directed “as the person who oversees ethics issues for the institute” — was a frequent co-author with the researchers who had authored the corrected paper.

The same day we posted on the case — Oct. 29, 2019 — a PubPeer commenter pointed out new issues in Figure 4 of the paper. And now, the journal has retracted the paper:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: