by journal – Page 2 – Retraction Watch

Exclusive: Cancer researcher sues MD Anderson over misconduct finding

A biochemist who worked as a postdoc at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston has sued the institution to dispute findings of research misconduct.

The researcher, Sonia Melo, now at the University of Porto in Portugal, alleges MD Anderson did not follow its own policies while conducting its investigation. Melo lost a prestigious grant in 2016 after one of her papers was retracted for containing duplicated images.

MD Anderson’s investigation concerned a paper published in Cancer Cell in 2014. On August 7 the journal marked it with a “temporary Expression of Concern” detailing duplicated and relabeled data found in the probe, which was completed in May 2024. The article has been cited 1,462 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.

‘No misconduct here’: Author defends addendum that sleuth says is ‘inadequate’

A 23-year-old paper has received an addendum for “possible inadvertent errors” in the figures. But a sleuth says the update doesn’t address issues with the work.

The 2002 paper, which describes the behavior of Langerhans cells in normal and inflamed skin, was published in Nature Immunology and has been cited 774 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.

The article received a correction in 2003 to replace two “incorrect” figures. Over 20 years later, PubPeer commenter “Archasia belfragei” flagged issues with different figures, noting in December that some PCR bands were “more similar than expected.”

PLOS One slaps four papers with expressions of concern for overlapping control data

Four papers from a team of researchers in Japan have received expressions of concern for overlap in control samples, data, study design and statistical analyses. The publisher of the articles says it has closed its investigation.

The notices were published in PLOS One from July 31 to August 3 to inform readers of “study design concerns” and to provide additional supplementary data. They also cite a pair of related papers in other journals for the same problems, but those articles remain unmarked.

Masaya Oki, a professor of applied chemistry and biotechnology at the University of Fukui in Japan, is the corresponding author on all six papers. Each discusses the effects of a different gene inhibitor on cataracts taken from rat eyes. While the authors used multiple methods to study these effects, the EOCs concern the results obtained using microarrays to compare lens samples.

Hive mindfulness: Sleuths’ advice leads to retraction of paper on social connection

A journal has retracted a 2025 paper on social media and anxiety after a reader raised questions about the data – and thanks to the mentorship of a sleuth or two.

The article appeared in 2023 in BMC Psychology, a Springer Nature title. The sole author was Li Sun, whose affiliation is listed as the School of Marxism at Zhoukou Vocational and Technical College, in China.

According to the abstract of the paper, the research explored “the impact of mindfulness-based mobile apps on university students’ anxiety, loneliness, and well-being.” Those apps were “Headspace, Calm, and Insight Timer” which “offer a range of mindfulness exercises and resources for users to explore.”

Genomics pioneer George Church earns first retraction for anti-aging gene therapy paper

A paper coauthored by geneticist George Church has been retracted following an internal review at a university where several coauthors are based.

The article appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2022. The work supports an anti-aging gene therapy developed by BioViva, a company for which Church serves as an adviser. The paper’s authors claim cytomegalovirus (CMV) can be a gene therapy vector for a treatment for “aging-associated decline” that can be inhaled or injected monthly.

The work has been cited 41 times, two of which are citations from corrections to the article, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.

Fighting coordinated publication fraud is like ‘emptying an overflowing bathtub with a spoon,’ study coauthor says

The observed and forecasted growth rate of paper mill papers outpaces corrective measures, a new study finds. *R. Richardson et al./PNAS 2025*

Systematic research fraud has outpaced corrective measures and will only keep accelerating, according to a study of problematic publishing practices and the networks that fuel them.

The study, published August 4 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, examined research fraud carried out by paper mills, brokers and predatory publishers. By producing low quality or fabricated research, selling authorship and publishing without adequate quality control and peer review, respectively, these three groups were well known to produce a large volume of fraudulent research.

“This is a great paper showing how much fraud there is in the scientific literature. The paper also looks at different methods on how to detect problematic papers, networks and editors,” Anna Abalkina, a researcher at Freie Universität Berlin and creator of the Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker, said.

Frontiers to retract 122 articles, links thousands in other publishers’ journals to “unethical” network

The publisher Frontiers has begun retracting a batch of 122 articles across five journals after an investigation found a network of authors and editors engaged in “unethical actions” such as manipulating citations and reviewing papers without disclosing conflicts of interest.

The publisher’s research integrity team has identified more than 4,000 articles linked to the network in journals owned by seven other companies, according to a company statement. The team said it is willing to share details and the methodology of their investigation with other publishers upon request. The company is a member of the STM Hub, a platform publishers use to share such information.

After 15 years of controversy, Science retracts ‘arsenic life’ paper

*Science* has retracted a 2010 paper describing a strain of bacteria that purportedly substituted arsenic for phosphorus, an element present in all known life.
*Science*/AAAS

Fifteen years after publishing an explosive but long-criticized paper claiming to describe a microbe that could substitute arsenic for phosphate in its chemical makeup, Science is retracting the article, citing “expanded” criteria for retraction.

The authors stand by their findings and disagree with the retraction, and contend the decision doesn’t reflect best practices for publishers.

Many scientists, including David Sanders, a biologist at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind. who has previously argued for the paper’s retraction in posts for Retraction Watch, believe the paper’s results were simply the result of contamination of the authors’ materials. He told us he was “glad” to see the retraction.

Misconduct investigation at U.S. military university uncovers image duplication

Authors affiliated with a federal health sciences university have lost three papers this year for image duplication following an investigation by the institution. And another journal has confirmed it will retract a fourth paper by some of the same authors.

The “internal research misconduct investigation” conducted by the Uniformed Services University, or USU, in Bethesda, Md., found “several falsified or inappropriately duplicated images” and “images from previously published articles,” according to two of the retraction notices. USU, an institution focused on military medicine and part of the U.S. Department of Defense, acknowledged our multiple requests for comment about the investigation but did not provide a statement.

In January, Retraction Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request about the investigation. The Department of Defense acknowledged our request on January 7, noting the agency has 4,552 open requests that are processed in the order in which they are received.

Director of Cambridge toxicology institute retracts paper for potential image manipulation

Twelve years after sleuths flagged problematic images in a 2009 paper, the authors — including the head of a UK research institute — have retracted the article.

The paper, published in Genes & Development, has been cited 126 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.

According to the June 1 retraction notice, the authors retracted the paper because of “anomalies in the data presented” in multiple figures. “The issues relate to potential instances of image manipulation, including undisclosed splicing, lane flipping, and lane and panel duplications in the preparation of these figures.”

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: