by journal – Page 17 – Retraction Watch

Andrew Wakefield’s fraudulent paper on vaccines and autism has been cited more than a thousand times. These researchers tried to figure out why.

Retraction Watch readers are no doubt familiar with one of the most consequential retractions of this century, namely that of the 1998 paper in The Lancet by Andrew Wakefield and others claiming a link between vaccines and autism. What they may also know is that the paper remains one of the most highly cited retracted articles of all time, as demonstrated by our leaderboard of such papers.

With that in mind, six librarians from institutions in Wisconsin had a question: ” What are the characteristics of citations of the retracted 1998 article by Wakefield et al that purported to show an association between the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism?” A paper describing their findings was published on Friday in JAMA Network Open.

We asked corresponding author Elizabeth Suelzer, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, to answer several questions about the paper.

Retraction Watch (RW): Why did you decide to focus on the Wakefield paper, and what were your findings?

Stem cell researchers have papers retracted for image manipulation

A group of dentistry researchers in Japan, whose work on stem cells has been the subject of an institutional investigation, have now lost two papers in PLOS ONE for image problems.

The authors, from Aichi Gakuin University in Nagoya, were led by Makio Mogi, a medicinal biochemist at the school. Mogi asked for at least one of the retractions.

The first article, published in 2013, was titled “Matrix metalloproteinase-3 in odontoblastic cells derived from Ips cells: unique proliferation response as odontoblastic cells derived from ES cells.” It has been cited 18 times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science. According to the notice:

PLOS ONE realizes an academic editor had a conflict of interest that the publisher says it now tries harder to avoid

A group of genetics researchers in Italy has lost a 2014 paper in PLOS ONE for a range of image problems and a glaring conflict of interest.

The article, titled “Neuronal differentiation dictates estrogen-dependent survival and ERK1/2 kinetic by means of caveolin-1,” came from a team led by Luca Colucci-D’Amato, of the Second University of Naples.

The retraction notice in PLOS ONE lays out a raft of issues with the paper, for example:

‘Misguided and ineffectual’: Publisher offers mea culpa in retraction of paper questioning link between HIV and AIDS

Anyone who lives near or has ever driven past a cattle ranch knows this much: No amount of perfume can mask the smell of bullshit. If you want proof, and you don’t have a car, just ask the editors of Frontiers in Public Health.

In 2014, the journal published a paper by a researcher in Texas, Patricia Goodson, who questioned the causal link between HIV and AIDS. In response to the predictable outcry, the journal blinked, sort of.

‘Science by tweet’ prompts expression of concern, irking authors

The leader of an international team of genetics researchers is seething after a journal responded to critical tweets about their paper by issuing an expression of concern.

The article, “Exome sequencing in multiple sclerosis families identifies 12 candidate genes and nominates biological pathways for the genesis of disease,” was published in PLOS Genetics in early June 2019 by a group led by Carles Vilariño-Güell, of the Department of Medical Genetics at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver.

Less than a week after publication, according to Vilariño-Güell, the journal notified him that:

Authors retract paper claiming religious upbringing is linked to less generosity

Over at Psychology Today, Tyler VanderWeele reports on the case of a paper that earned significant headlines — and has now been retracted:

In 2015, a paper by Jean Decety and co-authors reported that children who were brought up religiously were less generous. The paper received a great deal of attention, and was covered by over 80 media outlets including The Economist, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, and Scientific American. As it turned out, however, the paper by Decety was wrong.

VanderWeele notes that Azim Shariff, of the University of California, Irvine, asked Decety for the data, and

Geology paper has a rocky road, is now retracted

The authors of a 2019 paper in PLOS One on rocks in China have retracted the article for “misrepresentation of the results and data.”

The article, “Impacts of rock properties on Danxia landform formation based on lithological experiments at Kongtongshan National Geopark, northwest China,” was written by a group from Sun Yat-sen University and Hainan University. The researchers declared that:

Did the IPCC’s new oceans report mean to cite a now-retracted paper?

A major new report about the dramatic warming of the oceans cites a 2018 Nature paper on the topic that was retracted earlier this week — the same day, in fact, that the report dropped.

But one of the authors of that paper tells Retraction Watch that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report, released September 25, must have meant to cite a different paper by the same authors.

The report concluded that:

It is virtually certain that the global ocean has warmed unabated since 1970 and has taken up more than 90% of the excess heat in the climate system (high confidence). Since 1993, the rate of ocean warming has more than doubled (likely).

In a section on global carbon burden, the document states that:

PLOS ONE retracts perfume study when data don’t pass the sniff test

A pair of perfume researchers in England have lost a 2019 paper on what makes a scent appealing because, ahem, something about the data didn’t smell quite right.

The article was titled “Social success of perfumes,” and it appeared in July in PLOS ONE. There was a press release and a university writeup about the paper — but not, we should note, about the retraction.

The authors were Vaiva Vasiliauskaite and Tim S. Evans, of the Theoretical Physics Group and Centre for Complexity Science at Imperial College London.

The abstract of the study stated that:

Nature paper on ocean warming retracted

Nature is retracting a 2018 paper which found that the oceans are warming much faster than predicted by previous models of climate change.

The article, “Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition,” appeared at last October but quickly drew the attention of an influential critic who said the analysis was flawed.

The authors agreed, and within three weeks the paper received the following update:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: