Ivan Oransky

Journal retracts 30-year-old paper by controversial psychologist Hans Eysenck

The International Journal of Sport Psychology has retracted a paper by the late — and controversial — psychologist Hans Eysenck, whose work has faced doubts since the early 1990s.

The paper, published in 1990, was one of dozens by Eysenck and Ronald Grossarth-Maticek found to be “unsafe” by King’s College London, but appears to be the first to be retracted.

Here’s the abstract of “Psychological factors as determinants of success in football and boxing: The effects of behaviour therapy”:

Weekend reads: An ugly fight in nutrition research; embezzling scientists; eyebrow-raising papers in China

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:

A new member of the 100-retraction club;
A reviewer caught stealing from an unpublished manuscript;
A publisher who decided to retract two papers after waiting more than a year for a university’s investigation to be completed.

Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Georgia State researcher up to nine retractions disagrees with the journal

A prominent researcher at Georgia State University who had two papers retracted and eight subjected to expressions of concern for problematic images last year is now up to nine retractions.

Ming-Hui Zou is the common author on all nine retracted papers, which were published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry from 2003 and 2010. Of the eight papers originally subjected to expressions of concern, seven have been retracted, and one has been updated to a correction.

Here is a typical retraction notice, for “Nicotine-induced activation of AMP-activated protein kinase inhibits fatty acid synthase in 3T3L1 adipocytes: A role for oxidant stress,” referring to image duplication, and an offer by the authors to “publish an amended figure or to repeat the experiments,” which the journal declined:

Weekend reads: 800 retractions from Russia; paying to publish in Vietnam; a retraction involving Facebook, political misinformation, and Teen Vogue

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

Crossfit being awarded $4 million in sanctions in a case stemming from a now-retracted paper;
the WHO formally retracting opioid guidelines tainted by conflict of interest;
the retraction of 17 papers by one journal for citation manipulation.

Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Weekend reads: Advice from an author with 18 retractions; ‘TripAdvisor for peer review’; theft, indictments, and prison

Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads — the first of 2020! — 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:

The retraction of a Science paper by a Nobel winner;
Nine retractions at once for a prominent cancer researcher;
A journal that topped 100 retractions in 2019;
Findings of misconduct in a case that also included embezzlement of grant funds.

Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Nobel winner retracts paper from Science

A Caltech researcher who shared the 2018 Nobel Prize in Chemistry has retracted a 2019 paper after being unable to replicate the results.

Frances Arnold, who won half of the 2018 prize for her work on the evolution of enzymes, tweeted the news earlier today:

Psychiatrist who stole grant funds also engaged in research misconduct, says ORI

Alexander Neumeister. Source: Yale School of Medicine

Retraction Watch readers may recall the name Alexander Neumeister.

In 2016, The New York Times reported on his dismissal from the New York University School of Medicine following claims of misconduct in a trial Neumeister was running.

A lot has happened in the case since, including embezzlement charges for which he pleaded guilty. Now, the U.S. Office of Research Integrity has found that Neumeister also committed research misconduct.

Weekend reads: How to be a statistical detective; a $5.5 million settlement over hidden grants; 15 studies that challenged medical dogma

Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads — the last of 2019! — 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:

The story of what happened when researchers tried to publish a Nature paper 600 times;
How a plagiarized image in NEJM was discovered;
A new scam involving special issues of journals;
Four retractions for an endocrinology researcher in South Korea.

Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

‘Disbelief’: Researchers, watch out for this new scam involving journal special issues

We’ve seen authors fake peer review by creating fake email addresses, and even companies that use photos of celebrities to lure unsuspecting authors. Now along comes a new scam, this one involving special issues of journals. In “Predatory publishing, hijacking of legitimate journals and impersonation of researchers via special issue announcements: a warning for editors and authors about a new scam,” Jamie Trapp, of Queensland University of Technology, describes what happened when scammers tried to snare the journal he edits — Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine. We asked Trapp to answer a few questions about the scheme.

Retraction Watch (RW): You recently wrote about what you call “a new scam.” Tell us about this scam.

A ‘stress test’ for journals: What happened when authors tried to republish a Nature paper more than 600 times?

Journal stings come in various shapes and sizes. There are the hilarious ones in which authors manage to get papers based on Seinfeld or Star Wars published. There are those that play a role in the culture wars. And then there are some on a massive scale, with statistical analyses.

That’s how we’d describe the latest paper by Ottawa journalologists Kelly Cobey, David Moher and colleagues. We asked Cobey and Moher to answer some questions about the recently posted preprint, “Stress testing journals: a quasi-experimental study of rejection rates of a previously published paper.”

Retraction Watch (RW): What prompted you to do this study?

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: