by publisher – Retraction Watch

Editors of economics journal resign after association renews Taylor & Francis contract

Forty-one editors, associate editors and advisory board members resigned from their roles at the Review of Social Economy after the Association for Social Economics, which owns the journal, renewed its contract with publisher Taylor & Francis.

The resigning members, who cited concerns the publisher would eventually transition the journal to a model based wholly on author publishing fees as a reason for their departure, say they plan to launch their own publication. ASE, however, denies the journal plans to fully rely on author publishing charges.

The four coeditors of the journal resigned on July 4, according to an email to the ASE we have seen. Former editor Roberto Veneziani, economics professor at Queen Mary University of London, said that happened two days after the association decided to renew its contract with Taylor & Francis. On July 10, 37 associate editors and advisory board members also resigned, noting they shared the values of the coeditors.

Exclusive: A couple paid more than $800,000 for a gene-editing therapy for their daughter. She died, and it wasn’t made public

An investigation by Science and Retraction Watch has uncovered details about a clinical trial that resulted in the death of its sole patient: a 6-year-old girl with a rare genetic mutation affecting her cognitive development. Her death has never been reported publicly, even though the medical team published its preclinical work in Nature earlier this year. Also omitted from the paper and trial records: The family paid more than $800,000 to fund the therapy’s development. The family has asked the authors to withdraw the paper, and experts we spoke to raised issues they say may warrant a retraction. The beginning of the story, by Retraction Watch contributing writer Brendan Borrell, is below, lightly edited for brevity. Read the full story at Science.

The 6-year-old girl tugged on her mother’s hand as they pressed through the doors of the hospital in Shanghai. Behind them, her father rolled a large suitcase with everything the child needed for the weeklong stay. She told her parents it felt like they were going on vacation. In fact, they brought her here for an experimental gene therapy.

The girl was slipping behind her peers in kindergarten. She still spoke in simple sentences and ate with training chopsticks. Underneath it all was a single mutated DNA base, a T that should have been a C.

“Your ‘book’ has a small mistake, which has caused you to have a disease that affects your growth,” read the children’s version of the informed consent form from the hospital. “Over time, it can get more serious.”

Doctors hoped to repair that mistake while her brain was still building itself. It would be a clinical trial of one, funded in part by $860,000 the parents had scraped together from their own savings and from relatives.

Exclusive: Medical student in Nepal behind busy research factory

A second-year medical student in Nepal is at the center of an international research network churning out everything from systematic reviews and meta-analyses to case reports and database studies, Retraction Watch has learned.

The student, Raghabendra Kumar Mahato, leverages this network, which includes nearly 1,000 members connected through the WhatsApp messaging platform, to produce large numbers of conference abstracts and journal papers at breakneck speed, according to posts and messages we have reviewed. The work has been presented or accepted for presentation at conferences organized by the American Heart Association (AHA), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and many other medical societies and has appeared in journals from major publishers.

But a review of dozens of WhatsApp messages we obtained and an interview with a disillusioned member of the community, called the “Global Clinical Research Consortium,” suggests the network produces fast-churn science, includes a known paper miller and treats authorship as a tradable commodity.

Publisher investigating peer reviewer for alleged bribery scheme

Earlier this year, Tushar Sen, an independent researcher based in New Delhi, submitted a manuscript to Security and Privacy about the modeling of polymorphic malware. On May 15, a purported reviewer for the journal wrote Sen indicating he received the article, but that it was not ready for publication.

“i may revise it with you but you should follow paid review for my efforts,” the email read. “i may finalise it in one week and i will recommend acceptance as a final decision.”

Sen, a cybersecurity researcher, believed the writer was attempting to extort money from him in exchange for recommending acceptance of his submission. He did not respond, but continued to receive more emails from the individual about the proposal. In a May 20 email, the person wrote they were “still awaiting” Sen’s response before “i submit rejection to the journal.” On May 23, the purported reviewer wrote, “I recommended the rejection decision” and “Gud (sic) luck.”

Sage retracts eight papers by former Radboud ‘rising star’ for compromised peer-review process

The publisher Sage has retracted eight papers by a former “rising star” from a Dutch university for a “compromised” peer-review process at a journal he edited.

Last week, Retraction Watch obtained an email from an editor at Sage to the editorial board of Group & Organization Management, stating that, following a “thorough investigation,” the publisher would retract “a subset of articles” by the journal’s former editor-in-chief Yannick Griep. The retraction applies to eight of the 25 papers Griep coauthored in the journal, according to the July 14 retraction notice. The papers were retracted for a “compromised” peer-review process, the notice states.

“As the peer-review process was administered by the former Editor in Chief, who is also the co-author of the articles, the objectivity of the peer-review process has been compromised,” reads a publisher’s note published alongside the retractions. The move “relates to the underlying review process and no determination has been made regarding the scientific content of the articles.”

ORI sanction and news coverage prompts sleuthing, retraction

Four months after the Office of Research Integrity sanctioned a former postdoc for falsifying images in grant reports, a Science journal is retracting a paper by the researcher for image duplication.

After reading our story about the ORI’s findings, sleuth Paul S. Brookes took a look at the researcher’s ORCID profile and ran his papers through an AI tool that spots duplicate images.

Brookes’ analysis showed a 2019 paper in Science Signaling contained an image identical to an earlier study in Scientific Reports with the same first author — Chen-Yeh Ke, the former postdoctoral fellow at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York who was sanctioned by ORI in March for falsifying images in an unpublished manuscript supported by federal funds and reporting the fabricated results in two research performance progress reports.

‘Disappointed’: Cochrane journal asked researchers to publish article, then retracted it for conflicts

A developer of an AI tool for conducting literature reviews said he and his team were “excited and honored” when a Cochrane journal had extended a “specific and individual invitation” in January 2025 to submit an article describing their system.

Kevin Kallmes, the chief executive officer at and founder of Nested Knowledge, and five of his colleagues wrote the manuscript and submitted their paper describing the procedure for using AutoLit. They included their affiliations and a note they held equity in the company. Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods published the paper in October.

A few months later, the journal retracted it.

‘The exploitation still remains’: Stats journal associate editors resign over $3,000 publishing charge

Eighteen associate editors of the journal Statistics and Computing have announced they will resign after Springer Nature announced the journal would require a fee to publish.

In a July 8 statement to editor-in-chief Ajay Jasra, the resigning editors cite the publisher’s decision to become fully open access starting in 2027, a move they call “irreconcilable with our vision of science.” According to the journal’s homepage, all submissions from July 1 that end up in the journal will be subject to a $2,990 article processing charge (APC).

The journal formerly operated as a hybrid model, with optional open access. While the fee to publish OA will remain the same, authors will not have the option to publish for free with their research behind a paywall, unless they qualify for a waiver. Springer Nature offers APC waivers to papers with corresponding authors in low-income areas, according to their website.

Exclusive: Sage to retract multiple articles by dismissed rising star for “compromised” peer-review process

Yannick Griep, a former rising star in management research at Radboud University in the Netherlands, is set to lose an undisclosed number of articles from a journal he once edited, Retraction Watch has learned.

In an email we obtained, Sage’s Isabella Austin told editorial board members of Group & Organization Management that following “a thorough investigation into the concerns about peer-review on this journal,” the publisher found the “objectivity of the peer-review process administered by the former Editor in Chief on a subset of articles where they are co-author was compromised.” Those articles, wrote Austin, would be retracted.

Springer Nature un-retracts Planck papers, citing “human error”

Today the Retraction Watch list of Nobelists who have retracted papers bids Verabschiedung to Max Planck.

After days of scrutiny, Springer Nature has restored two papers by Planck, who won the Nobel for Physics in 1918, reversing a 2011 decision to retract the articles for “copyright violations.”

Both articles are back, and now carry the following statement:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: