by publisher – Page 2 – Retraction Watch

A composer published a paper on theoretical physics. His lack of credentials drew criticism.

Some people compose music or make YouTube videos for a hobby. That’s Brandon Yates’ job — so in his spare time, he tries his hand at theoretical physics. But his only published paper was questioned because of his lack of professional training in the field — despite the physicist who inspired his work saying the work looks legitimate.

Based in Las Vegas, Yates earns a living as a composer for the animated series called “Death Battle.” He also has had an “intuitive understanding of, and love for, General Relativity for as long as I can remember,” he told Retraction Watch. But he has no formal training in physics and is self-taught, he said.

After watching a video lecture series online by Canadian physicist Eric Poisson, in January, Yates built a computer algebra program to look into rules in general relativity used to fuse two spacetimes across a thin shell, Yates said. By March, he had come across a conditional result he believed to be novel.

High-profile anesthesiologists earning retractions for data, image problems

In July 2021, John Loadsman received a manuscript about a clinical trial that immediately roused his suspicion. Then the editor-in-chief of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Loadsman asked the authors for the raw data.

They weren’t pretty. “When I looked carefully at the spreadsheet, I could see entire blocks of data that were repeated,” recalled Loadsman, an anesthesiologist and scientific sleuth at the University of Sydney. “It was obvious that this was cooked.”

He rejected the manuscript, informing both the corresponding author, Reyhan Polat of the University of Health Sciences in Ankara and Etlik City Hospital, in Turkey, and her institution about his concerns. He also made a mental note to have a look at the researcher’s published work. Over the following years, that effort drew in another sleuth and eventually prompted inquiries into more than two dozen papers by a network of researchers in Turkey.

Federal lawsuit accuses four major publishers of extorting article processing charges

A lawsuit filed under the U.S. False Claims Act accuses four major publishers of perpetrating a decade-long scheme to defraud the government by charging exorbitant article processing charges.

The case, which became unsealed July 30, claims Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Informa forced U.S. research institutions to submit false claims to the government for reimbursement through article fees up to 10 times the cost of processing the articles.

Juan Pablo Alperin, a professor at Simon Fraser University and codirector of the Scholarly Communications Lab based in Vancouver, is represented by two attorneys who have had blockbuster success in FCA cases over the past decade. He and his attorneys originally filed the case under seal in March 2024. The government declined to intervene in the case on July 23 of this year, and a judge ordered the complaint unsealed, which now allows Alperin to pursue the case independently.

Retraction Watch story exposing research factory fuels investigations, preprint withdrawals, termination

Raghabendra Kumar Mahato

A preprint server has withdrawn three papers by an author at the center of a Retraction Watch story revealing a prolific research factory operated through the WhatsApp messaging system.

Last week, we reported on Raghabendra Kumar Mahato, a second-year medical student in Nepal, who runs an international research network that churns out conference abstracts and journal papers at a rapid-fire pace. Mahato’s network includes nearly 1,000 members connected through WhatsApp and produces suspected fast-churn science, while recruiting authorship for the works. Papers by the network have been accepted by major journals and presented at conferences by leading medical societies.

On July 24, Research Square, a preprint server owned by Springer Nature, withdrew three manuscripts by Mahato due to concerns “regarding integrity arising from the submitting author’s involvement in a paper mill network,” according to notices placed on the work. The notices include a link to Retraction Watch’s investigation.

Journal, university investigations launched into gene-editing death following Science-Retraction Watch reporting

Nature is investigating concerns surrounding a paper at the heart of a news story published last week on the death of a 6-year-old girl following a gene therapy treatment in China.

The paper, published in February by a team led by neuroscientist Zilong Qiu of Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine in China, described preclinical work for a gene-editing treatment for Snijders Blok-Campeau syndrome, a neurodevelopmental disorder.

As we reported in collaboration with Science, the work was funded in part by the family of a 6-year-old girl with the condition. The family had approached Qiu based on work he had done with gene therapy for Rett syndrome, a disorder that also causes developmental delay. The parents ended up paying $860,000 to fund preclinical work for a gene-editing treatment for their daughter, who died of a severe immune reaction to the therapy seven days after receiving it.

Kaggle removes problematic stroke dataset for copyright infringement

Images from the now-deleted dataset on Kaggle purportedly showed people who had a stroke, but the folder included stock images and photos of politicians and celebrities, as seen in this screenshot.

The online data repository Kaggle has removed a problematic dataset for violating intellectual property rights months after it was flagged by sleuths for containing celebrity photos and lacking information on data provenance or confirmed medical diagnoses.

Researchers had used the images to train machine learning algorithms to detect stroke, but the dataset instead contained images of people with Bell’s palsy — as well as pictures of celebrities from movies and on the red carpet, as we reported in May. Adrian Barnett, a medical statistician at Queensland University of Technology in Australia, flagged the dataset after discovering two others he and his colleagues investigated in a February preprint that showed signs of being fabricated.

Using a reverse image search, Barnett matched four of the photos in the dataset, called “Facial droop and facial paralysis image,” to a paper published years earlier in the Journal of the Canadian Dental Association (JCDA). Only after prompting the journal to complain to Kaggle did the company take down the dataset.

Journal investigating apparent data mismatch in climate study

A leading environmental economics journal is looking into claims that a 2025 study linking national innovation to lower carbon emissions contains data that does not match its source, after an expert in the field requested the paper be retracted.

The article appeared in Ecological Economics, the journal for the International Society for Ecological Economics and published by Elsevier. The authors, three researchers at ESSCA School of Management in Lyon, claimed to draw on data from 229 countries between 2013 and 2020 and reported a negative relationship between a country’s “innovativeness” and its carbon dioxide emissions per capita. The paper has been cited five times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.

But three months after it was published, in October 2025, the journal began investigating anomalies in the dataset, although the authors maintain none of it was fabricated. In a letter to the journal’s editors requesting a retraction last October, seen by Retraction Watch, an academic with expertise in the field who reviewed the dataset said the paper had “serious data integrity concerns” and described a “clear case of research misconduct.”

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.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: