by reason for retraction – Retraction Watch

Gynecologists in Italy collect more retractions and an expression of concern

A group of gynecologists in Italy has tallied yet another retraction, this time for an article with “significant overlap” with the methods, data and text of an older paper that shares two of the same authors.

The paper, which involved research on a treatment for infertility, is the latest in a string of retractions for Sandro Gerli and Gian Carlo Di Renzo of the University of Perugia, and Vittorio Unfer, now at Saint Camillus International University of Health Sciences in Rome. Just a few weeks earlier, the researchers also received an expression of concern on a separate paper examining a widely used supplement for polycystic ovary syndrome.

Commenters on PubPeer began to flag the researchers’ papers two years ago, and they now have 11 retractions among them, largely for duplicated data and text across the publications, as well as undisclosed conflicts of interest and unreliable study methods. In 2024, Di Renzo threatened legal action over a critic’s allegations about data duplications among several papers he coauthored — many of which have since been retracted.

Nature journal retracts two papers by immunology researchers for image duplication

A Nature journal has retracted a decades-old immunology paper that has been cited more than 1,000 times and, the author claims, spurred the development of new drugs.

The paper on antibody diversity appeared in Nature Immunology in 2002. The article, cited 1,016 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science, is the most cited work for corresponding author Andrea Cerutti, a professor at the Catalan Institution for Research and Advanced Studies in Spain.

The retraction comes on the heels of another retraction for Cerrutti, also for a paper in Nature Immunology. Both had been flagged on PubPeer for image issues. The authors maintain there was no misconduct.

Court challenge could chill reporting of research fraud, say whistleblower attorneys

The U.S. government recently announced a record $6.8 billion in False Claims Act settlements and judgments in 2025, the most in a single year since the law’s enactment 163 years ago. For those concerned with scientific integrity, another significant FCA record was also set in 2025: the number of suits brought under the FCA by private individuals against entities they believe defrauded the federal government.

Successful qui tam suits brought under the FCA can come with incentivizing monetary rewards – sometimes substantial – for the whistleblowers. Whistleblowers filed a record 1,297 of these so-called qui tam lawsuits in 2025, up from 979 suits in 2024.

Despite the FCA’s banner year, legal experts say a pending challenge may weaken the law’s whistleblower power and impact. A Florida district court recently struck down the FCA’s qui tam provisions as unconstitutional because these suits involve individuals suing on behalf of the government. If an appeals court upholds the decision, some whistleblowers in that court’s jurisdiction may no longer get paid for exposing wrongdoing, a change that could allow more fraud to slip under the radar, legal analysts say.

U.S. ORI’s first finding of 2026: Researcher faked data in grant apps

A former cancer researcher at University of Oklahoma Health Science Center has been barred from participating in federally funded research without supervision for three years after the U.S. Office of Research Integrity found he falsified data in grant applications.

Daniel Andrade committed research misconduct by falsifying data in two grant applications, according to a summary published Feb. 6 on the ORI website and to be published in the Federal Register. The finding is the agency’s first in 2026 and follows just two findings in 2025.

Now a scientist at Cytovance Biologics, according to LinkedIn, Andrade did not return messages seeking comment. ORI also did not get back to us.

Journal silently removes paper for plagiarism, author claims identity theft

If a plagiarized paper by an author who claims he didn’t write it disappears from a journal’s website with no notice, did it ever exist in the first place? It’s not just a philosophical question for the researcher whose published paper turned up in another journal under someone else’s name.

As a master’s student in 2011, researcher Silvia De Cesare published a paper in Implications Philosophiques analyzing a 20th century philosopher’s skepticism of the theory of evolution despite its compatibility with his philosophical views. Now with two doctorates — in ecology and in philosophy — De Cesare is a postdoctoral scholar at Utrecht University in the Netherlands and studies the relationships between evolutionary theory and the idea of progress.

In June last year, De Cesare learned that someone had published a version of her article in the International Journal of Applied Science and Research (IJASR) in 2020. The paper, a near-verbatim copy of De Cesare’s article apart from the omission of a few footnotes, listed Marcellin Lunanga Mukunda, of the University of Kinshasa in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, as its sole author. But Mukunda denies publishing the paper, telling us he had been hacked, or perhaps robbed, as an explanation for how his name appeared on the paper.

Lancet flags long-scrutinized report of infant poisoned by opioids in breast milk

The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto

The Lancet has put an expression of concern on a 2006 case report of a baby’s death purportedly from morphine poisoning through breast milk. The decision comes just days after the New Yorker published a year-long investigation into the death and the controversies that have surrounded it.

The case report described the 2005 death of a baby boy whose mother had been prescribed Tylenol 3, which contains codeine. Gideon Koren, founder of the now-defunct Motherisk Drug Testing Laboratory at the University of Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children, used the case for years to claim codeine – which gets metabolized to morphine in the body – can pose a lethal risk to breastfeeding infants.

“It feels like an element of vindication,” David Juurlink, professor of medicine and pediatrics at the University of Toronto, told Retraction Watch of the expression of concern. Juurlink, a pharmacologist and toxicologist who has been pursuing this case for over a decade, requested The Lancet retract the article in 2020, when he and a colleague published a review article calling into question key elements of the case report. The paper, he said, “really does serve as the foundation of an entire branch of pediatric pharmacology that shouldn’t exist.”

Spanish court rules researcher plagiarized colleague, orders withdrawal of works

Spain’s Supreme Court in Madrid
*Cberbell/Wikimedia Commons*

The Supreme Court of Spain has ordered a literary scholar to pursue retractions of nine works it determined were plagiarized.

The Tribunal Supremo upheld a lower court’s ruling that narrative theory researcher Franciscó Álamo Felices, a professor at the University of Almería in Spain, plagiarized a colleague’s work in two books and seven articles. José R. Valles Calatrava, a literary theory professor at the same university, sued Felices in 2019 for infringement of his intellectual property rights.

That lower court found Felices responsible for “a huge amount of plagiarism at different times and in different articles, revealing a systematic and conscientious parasitic attitude and a desire for appropriation,” according to a translation of the ruling by DeepL Translate. In an October 2025 decision, the Tribunal Supremo dismissed an appeal by Felices against the ruling, finding he failed to demonstrate any fundamental errors of law.

Medical journal publishes a letter on AI with a fake reference to itself

We’ve seen all kinds of articles that got published despite having references that don’t exist. But this was a new one: a paper with a made-up reference to the journal in which it appears.

While nonexistent references can indicate the use of a large language model in generating text, the authors maintain they used AI according to the journal’s guidelines.

The letter to the editor, published in December 2024 in Intensive Care Medicine, explored ways AI could help clinicians monitor blood circulation in patients in intensive care units. The 750-word letter included 15 references.

Engineering journal plucks poultry paper for plagiarism

While plagiarism can sometimes be difficult to prove, stolen figures and identical metadata were the death knell for a recent article involving chicken mortality.

In September, the authors of a 2022 paper in the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers’ journal Applied Engineering in Agriculture discovered a version of their article published by different authors in the International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology. Both papers, which had identical titles, describe the development of a robot designed to assist with detecting and removing dead chickens from farms.

Although some of the text in the 2025 IJERT paper was altered, the images are the same as those from the ASABE paper, which has been cited 13 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. The IJERT paper also replaced the word “broiler,” a chicken raised for meat production, with “grill,” including paraphrasing “broiler mortality” as “grill mortality” and “U.S. broiler industry” as “American grill business.” Such tortured phrases, which occur when common phrases are transformed into nonsensical ones, can indicate plagiarism.

Study is stolen, sold, published. Now the victim is accused of plagiarism

The year 2026 did not start off kindly for Vijayalakshmi S, an economics researcher at RV University in Bengaluru, India. She received a rejection letter from a journal noting that a paper of hers was highly similar to another published study by other researchers.

S couldn’t understand why that was — until she realised someone had somehow gotten hold of her study and published it as their own. She took to LinkedIn, expressing her concerns and tagging the authors responsible. The post attracted a comment from another individual, also based in India, with inside knowledge of how paper mills work. Using keywords from S’s study, he found reasons to believe authorship slots on the stolen paper had been sold on Telegram for less than $200 each.

After S’s LinkedIn post went live, she heard from someone apologizing on behalf of a researcher who had allegedly mistakenly published her paper as a coauthor. That person was now offering her a different study on a related topic that she could publish under her name.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: