by publisher – Retraction Watch

Journal let authors make undisclosed changes that masked stolen content in paper

An Elsevier journal allowed a paper containing extensive plagiarism to remain online, while letting its authors make undisclosed revisions that masked the offense, Retraction Watch has learned. But the journal’s editor-in-chief told us he has subsequently decided to retract the paper.

The article, on cognitive impairment among older adults in India, appeared online on June 15 as a pre-proof in Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics Plus. At that point, its background section included several long paragraphs that were identical, or near-identical, to text in an extended conference abstract from 2024. The study’s objectives and methods also bore strong similarity to the earlier work, which had been conducted by another group of researchers.

Poulami Barman, first author of the conference abstract and a dual-program Ph.D. student in India and Germany, became aware her work had been stolen after one of her supervisors alerted her to the new paper. It turned out she knew the article’s corresponding author well. Like Barman, Madhurima Sharma was a Ph.D. student at the International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS) in Mumbai, and she had previously asked Barman to share her code. Barman had refused to do so until her work was published.

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.”

Authors asked Elsevier to retract papers in 2012. In one case, they’re still waiting.

Elsevier has retracted two papers for image duplication – 13 years after the authors alerted the journal to issues with the work.

The papers are the third and fourth retractions for a group of researchers in Ireland. The team had asked Elsevier journals to retract five papers in April 2012 — one of which is still in process.

The first two papers, published in Cancer Letters, were retracted in 2013.

Then last week, two more articles, published in the European Journal of Pharmacology (EJP), were retracted.

‘Tin Man Syndrome’ case plagiarized from hoax, sleuths say

*A comparison of the images and an overlay, provided by a sleuth.*

On April Fools’ Day 10 years ago, radiologist Matt Skalski took part in a website’s annual challenge to prank the radiology community by posting the case of a man with “ectopia cordis interna,” or “Tin Man Syndrome.” Unlike the fictitious metal character from the Wizard of Oz, Skalski’s satirical patient had a heart — in his abdomen.

Now a group of researchers say they encountered the disease in real life, in a 22-year-old patient they claim has “no significant medical history.”

The researchers based in Iraq published their “rare case report” in Medicine in July.

Sage journal retracts nearly 50 papers for signs of paper mill activity

Sage has retracted four dozen papers from one of its journals for suspected paper mill activity.

The publisher started an investigation into the European Journal of Inflammation “after we noticed signs of papermill activity in one of the articles,” Laura West, a corporate communications and public affairs manager at Sage, told Retraction Watch.

The investigation found the papers “contain indicators of third-party involvement,” according to the retraction notice, published August 5. Sage and the editor of the journal decided to retract the articles due to “concerns around author contributions to these articles, as well as concerns around the integrity of the research process.”

Springer Nature retracts book with fake citations. Help us find more cases like this.

Springer Nature has officially retracted a book on machine learning following coverage by Retraction Watch. A reader sent us a tip about this book; we’d love your help identifying more.

As we reported, the book, Mastering Machine Learning: From Basics to Advanced, contained many citations to nonexistent works. These fake references are a hallmark of text generated by large language models like ChatGPT.

The retraction notice mentions the illusory citations, stating, “Following publication concerns were raised regarding the validity of certain references. Upon further investigation, the Publisher was unable to verify the source of 25 out of 46 references in this book.” After listing the 25 citations, 12 of which we found in our initial reporting, it continues, “the Series Editor and the publisher therefore no longer have confidence in the reliability of this book. The author has not stated explicitly whether he agrees with this retraction.”

27-year-old Nature paper earns expression of concern

Figure 1a in a 1998 paper was first flagged on PubPeer in 2016 for image irregularities.

Nature has issued an editorial expression of concern on a paper published 27 years ago — and nearly nine years after learning of an “irregularity” in a figure.

According to the June 18 statement, a figure in the 1998 paper showed duplicated control lanes, with one of them flipped.

Pseudonymous sleuth Claire Francis flagged the issue on PubPeer in 2016, and reported the problem to the journal at the same time, Francis told Retraction Watch.

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.

Microbiome company CEO who linked COVID vaccine to bacterial decline now has four retractions

A gastroenterologist and microbiome researcher who has promoted hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin as COVID treatments has lost a paper after a sleuth reported differences between the article and the registered protocol of the clinical trial it purported to describe.

The retracted article, on detecting SARS-CoV-2 in fecal samples, was published in Gut Pathogens in January 2021. It marks the fourth retraction for study coauthor Sabine Hazan.

Hazan is founder and CEO of ProgenaBiome, a laboratory in Ventura, Calif., advertising clinical trials exploring the role of the gut microbiome in conditions including autism and Alzheimer’s disease, as well as COVID. She is also CEO of Ventura Clinical Trials, which lists dozens of pharmaceutical and biotech companies among its clients.

‘Biased’ and ‘unethical’: Journal objects to Scopus delisting

A home economics journal delisted from Scopus last year has called the decision “biased against journals from developing countries.”

Elsevier delisted the journal Nurture, published by “Nurture Publishing Group,” from the publisher’s citation database in June 2024, after indexing it for a dozen years. In an editorial published this April, Sadie Ahmad, the editorial manager for Nurture, wrote Scopus delisted the journal for three reasons: an increase in the number of scientific articles published, papers in topics beyond the scope of the journal, and an uptick of authors from different countries.

A representative from Elsevier told us Scopus’ decision was also a result of “weak quality” of papers and “low citation metrics compared to what one would expect of a journal with such history and scope.” The journal has been publishing since 2007.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: