A week after The BMJ published a highly publicized paper claiming stem cell therapy can reduce the risk of heart failure, sleuths have unearthed what they are calling “serious” inconsistencies in the data.
The paper claims the phase III clinical trial published October 29 included over 400 patients in Shiraz, Iran, and tested whether stem cell therapy lowers the risk of heart failure after a heart attack.
The results were celebrated in a press release by the journal and appeared in several news outlets, with New Scientistcalling the study the “strongest evidence yet that stem cells can help the heart repair itself.”
One of the papers in the analysis contained a figure (bottom) found to have overlap with other work by the same author (top). Both papers have been retracted. Annotated images: PubPeer
More than 200 papers on ways to prevent brain injury after a stroke contain problematic images, according to an analysis published today in PLOS Biology. Researchers found dozens of duplicated Western blots and reused images of tissues and cells purportedly showing different experimental conditions — both within a single paper and across separate publications.
As we reported last year, René Aquarius and Kim Wever, of the Radboud University Medical Center in the Netherlands, first noticed these patterns in 2023 when they started working on a systematic review of animal studies in the field. They had wanted to identify promising interventions for preventing early brain injury following hemorrhagic stroke. Instead, their efforts turned into an audit of suspicious papers in their field.
Of the 608 studies they analyzed, more than 240, or 40 percent, contained problematic images. So far, 19 of those articles have been retracted and 55 corrected, mostly from the researchers’ efforts to alert journals and publishers about the issues. Almost 90 percent of the problematic papers had a corresponding author based in China, and many appeared in major journals such as Stroke, Brain Research and Molecular Neurobiology.
Clarivate has removed the mega-journal Cureus from its Master Journal List, according to the October update, released today.
The move means Cureus will no longer be indexed in Web of Science or receive an impact factor. As we have reported, it can also mean researchers are less likely to submit to the journal, given universities rely on such metrics to judge researchers’ work for tenure and promotion decisions.
Clarivate put indexing for the journal on hold last September for concerns about article quality, which the journal has been criticized for in the past.
A journal says it will retract a 2019 paper on an Alzheimer’s treatment after an institutional investigation found research misconduct, according to emails seen by Retraction Watch. The move comes four years after another investigation by the same university uncovered image duplication in a different paper by a similar group of authors.
The paper, published in Biological Psychiatry,describes the potential of an apoE antagonist for treatment in Alzheimer’s disease.
A 2019 news release by the University of South Florida, home to several of the researchers involved in the study, called the work “promising.” Lead author Darrell Sawmiller, an assistant professor at USF, said the study represented “the first time … we have direct evidence” apoE “acts as an essential molecule” in the mechanisms leading to Alzheimer’s.
After more than 20 years of criticism and calls for retraction, a journal has placed an expression of concern on a study of the antidepressant Paxil in teens that critics say has led to unwarranted and potentially harmful prescribing of the drug to youth.
The 2001 paper, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (JAACAP), reported findings from a randomized trial known as “Study 329,” which concluded the antidepressant Paxil was safe and effective in kids ages 12 to 18.
In 2012, Paxil maker GlaxoSmithKline agreed to pay $3 billion to settle civil and criminal charges that included “unlawful promotion” of the drug for adolescents, for whom the product was never approved, and allegations the company “participated in preparing, publishing and distributing a misleading medical journal article” — the JAACAP paper. A reanalysis in 2015 found the drug was “ineffective and unsafe” for the age group studied.
A sleuth who has identified several hundred articles describing clinical women’s health research with untrustworthy data, leading to nearly 300 retractions, has now lost one of his own papers for duplicate publication.
Mol told Retraction Watch about 50 of his papers have been investigated since 2020, usually after anonymous complaints. “It is clear that somebody had been screening my papers … in a systematic way to find any wrongdoing,” he said. His only other retraction came after he and colleagues found an error in their own work and requested the action.
Eight papers by two emeritus researchers from Duke University have been retracted in recent months for alleged image duplications. Although the researchers had worked at the university for decades, Duke officials have not responded to repeated inquiries about the retractions.
The papers were published between 2004 and 2014 in The Journal of Cellular Biochemistry and PLOS One. According to the retraction statements, the articles contained images and figures that appeared similar or identical to others in the same paper or published elsewhere.
The two researchers, Salvatore Pizzo, a former chair of Duke’s Department of Pathology, and his colleague Uma Kant Misra, spent much of their careers studying prostate cancer. From 1993 to 2015, Pizzo and Misra published 70 papers together, with 26 where they are the only authors. Pizzo did not respond to repeated emails from Retraction Watch asking for comment. Misra died Sept. 18.
PLOS One has retracted a paper linking vitamin D levels and COVID-19 morbidity three years after a critic flagged the data in the study as “deeply bizarre.” The authors objected to the retraction, with one calling it “outrageous” and pointing to flaws in the published notice.
The article, which appeared in February 2022, claimed people with low levels of vitamin D were at increased risk for severe COVID-19 and were more likely to die of the disease than other patients. It has been cited 65 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.
The paper had a “huge, immediate impact,” said Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, a senior research fellow from the University of Wollongong in Australia, citing the fact that the paper had been viewed over 1 million times within six weeks of being published. The article joins others, many also flagged by Meyerowitz-Katz, purporting to find links between vitamin D intake and COVID-19 severity that have been retracted or removed.
Easy fixes for complex health problems can be tempting — but they rarely pan out. That seems to be the case for the investigators on one clinical trial who claimed consuming apple cider vinegar caused obese teens and young adults to lose weight.
Their article appeared in March 2024 in BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health. The journal is retracting the paper “because the authors’ analyses could not be replicated and multiple errors were identified,” according to the retraction notice.
The retraction, dated September 23, comes more than a year after sleuths pointed out some of these errors and other problems with the analysis.
Earlier this year, Marc Halushka, a pathologist at Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, came across a review titled simply “MicroRNA,” an unusually short title in a big field. Looking deeper into the review, published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology in 2018, Halushka found it had been cited more than 2,000 times. He thought this number “shockingly high,” given the article’s brevity and content.
Other, olderreviews on microRNA from leaders in the field have been cited far more often, some even tens of thousands of times. But when searching “microRNA” on Google Scholar, the review with that single term as its title is the first result.
Halushka doesn’t think anything in the paper is wrong or out of date. But the citation was among those in a paper he was asked to review that he thought “was clearly a paper mill paper,” he told Retraction Watch. He suspects when people “who know nothing about microRNAs because they are just in the paper mill business” need to cite a review on the topic, they just use the top search result.
