by reason for retraction – Retraction Watch

Judge upholds 15-year debarment against scientist who once threatened to sue Retraction Watch

An appeals judge has recommended the U.S. Health and Human Services uphold a proposed 15-year debarment for a scientist accused of research misconduct more than a decade ago.

In a May 2025 decision, administrative law judge (ALJ) Margaret G. Brakebusch concluded that “undisputed facts” establish Ariel Fernández engaged in research misconduct by falsifying research results in published papers, grant applications and other materials while serving as a professor at Rice University in Houston. Brakebusch recommended HHS affirm the proposed sanctions made by the Office of Research Integrity in a 2022 charging letter — including a 15-year ban from federal funding for Fernández, an Argentine chemist.

The development is the latest in a lengthy saga involving skepticism over Fernández’s work dating back to 2009. Over the years, scientists have criticized his work, journals have investigated his papers, and Fernández has flip-flopped about the funding sources for some of his articles. Fernández also levied a legal threat against Retraction Watch in the past for reporting on an expression of concern in one of his papers.

The Lancet retracts half-century-old unsigned commentary on talc for undisclosed industry ties

The Lancet has retracted a 49-year-old unsigned commentary on the safety of cosmetic talc after two researchers discovered the author was a paid consultant to Johnson & Johnson, at the time a leading producer of talc products.

The anonymous commentary has been used for decades by corporate defense attorneys to claim scientific proof of talc products’ safety, according to critics. But one such attorney says the paper “would not be relied upon to any significant degree.”

Published in 1977, the article argued against government-mandated regulatory testing for asbestos in cosmetic talc. Around that time, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration was considering such monitoring, a task that ultimately became the responsibility of cosmetics companies.

Technology journal pulls papers for unauthorized author changes, fictitious emails

An Elsevier energy-technology journal has retracted six papers from 2022 whose authors changed without editorial approval during revision of the manuscripts.

The authors also provided fictitious email addresses during the submission process, but changed them after the papers were accepted, according to retraction notices in the February issue of Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments.

While the issues don’t necessarily indicate foul play, authorship changes and the use of non-institutional email addresses can be signs of paper-mill involvement. In 2021, we reported on a website in Iran that listed “articles ready for acceptance,” including one to appear in Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments. The year after our story, the journal pulled the paper, whose author list had also changed at the revision stage.

Former Mount Sinai postdoc falsified images in grant updates, ORI says

The U.S. Office of Research Integrity has sanctioned a former postdoctoral fellow at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York for manipulating images in two grant updates and a manuscript.

Chen-Yeh “George” Ke committed research misconduct by intentionally falsifying images in an unpublished manuscript supported by federal funds and by reporting the fabricated results in two research performance progress reports, according to a summary published March 10 on the ORI website and to be published in the Federal Register.

Ke, now a manager at Level Biotechnology in Taiwan, according to LinkedIn, did not return messages seeking comment. A spokesperson from Mount Sinai acknowledged our message but did not comment before our deadline.

Stolen economics study retracted following Retraction Watch coverage

An economics study that was stolen and had its authorship slots sold by a paper mill has been retracted.

The move follows our reporting in January about a researcher in India who took to social media after an academic journal rejected her paper, noting that it had high similarity to a study published by other authors — despite the work being her own.

Vijayalakshmi S, an economics researcher at RV University in Bengaluru, had presented the study at a conference, and had a previous version rejected from a different journal. S concluded her paper was somehow stolen during either of those instances. Another researcher told us at the time that a post he found on Telegram offered authorship slots on S’s study for less than $200 apiece.

Publisher demands $500 from impersonated author to retract paper

Last year, we wrote about a Walsh Medical Media journal that refused to withdraw an author’s paper unless he paid a fee — even though he didn’t write or submit the article. For one reader, some details of that story were familiar.

Laertis Ikonomou, an associate professor at the University at Buffalo in New York, discovered last September he was listed as an author on a commentary he had never seen before that had been published in the Journal of Carcinogenesis & Mutagenesis. He immediately requested the journal remove the article, and, like our previous story, the journal demanded a fee to do so. But after a few exchanges, the journal just changed the author on the paper to a different name.

The Journal of Carcinogenesis & Mutagenesis is one of 77 published by Walsh Medical Media. The publisher calls itself a “global leader” in open access publishing and, although it bills itself as a healthcare publishing company, has journals with specialties ranging from chemical engineering, coastal zone management, and intellectual property rights, as we have previously reported.

A medical journal says the case reports it has published for 25 years are, in fact, fiction

A Canadian journal has issued corrections on 138 case reports it published over the last 25 years to add a disclaimer: The cases described are fictional.

Paediatrics & Child Health, the journal of the Canadian Paediatric Society, has published the cases since 2000 in articles for a series for its Canadian Paediatric Surveillance Program. The articles usually start with a case description followed by “learning points” that include statistics, clinical observations and data from CPSP. The peer-reviewed articles don’t state anywhere the cases described are fictional.

The corrections come following a January article in New Yorker magazine that mentioned one of the reports — “Baby boy blue,” a case published in 2010 describing an infant who showed signs of opioid exposure via breast milk while his mother was taking acetaminophen with codeine. The New Yorker article made public an admission by one of the coauthors that the case was made up.

Researcher ‘honestly shocked’ to discover name on paper, editor claims misunderstanding

While reviewing her Google Scholar profile to prepare a list of her publications, psychologist Maryam Farhang came across a paper she didn’t recognize.

The article, in the Journal of Research in Allied Life Sciences, included her name and affiliation, but Farhang hadn’t written or contributed to the paper in any way, she told Retraction Watch.

“I was honestly shocked and very concerned to see my name and affiliation used without my permission,” said Farhang, an associate research professor at Universidad de Las Américas in Chile. “This is not only unethical, but a serious breach of research integrity. As a researcher, authorship comes with responsibility, seeing my name attached to work that I neither wrote nor approved was professionally alarming and personally upsetting.”

Heart researcher asked to attend remedial training after OSU misconduct finding, report reveals

In a move one research ethics expert called “odd,” a university asked one of its professors to attend a remedial integrity course — despite their “significant concerns” the training would have any impact following findings of misconduct.

In 2024, Retraction Watch covered the case of Govindasamy Ilangovan, then an associate professor of cardiovascular medicine at The Ohio State University. We reported at that time two of his papers were retracted from Heart and Circulatory Physiology at the request of the university, and that university officials had requested a third retraction. Thanks to a public records request, we now have access to the university’s 2023 final investigation report, which provides us much more information.

The released material shows a committee of the university’s research integrity officers found Ilangovan responsible for manipulating images in three papers. OSU redacted the total number of images in question, but the investigators deemed it “very concerning.”

Porn addiction recovery group sues publisher, UCLA researcher over critical paper

An online peer support group for people overcoming addiction to pornography has filed a lawsuit against the authors of a paper critical of the group, as well as the publisher Taylor & Francis, in an attempt to get the article retracted.

The 2023 study, published in Deviant Behavior, found the Reddit channel for the group NoFap had a higher rate of posts containing violent language compared with two similar subreddits.

Study coauthors Nicole Prause, a bioinformatics programmer with the University of California, Los Angeles, and clinical psychologist David Ley are named defendants in the lawsuit, filed December 30. NoFap and the group’s founder, Alexander Rhodes, are plaintiffs in the suit, which alleges the authors manipulated the data to make the subreddit seem uniquely violent.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: