by reason for retraction – Page 37

‘In hindsight the mistake was quite stupid’: Authors retract paper on stroke

File this under “doing the right thing:” A group of stroke researchers in Germany have retracted a paper they published earlier this year after finding an error in their work shortly after publication that doomed the findings.

Julian Klingbeil, of the Department of Neurology at the University of Leipzig Medical Center, and his colleagues had been looking at how the location of lesions in the brain left behind by cerebral strokes were associated with the onset of depression after the attacks. According to the study, “Association of Lesion Location and Depressive Symptoms Poststroke”:

Elsevier says “integrity and rigor” of peer review for 400 papers fell “beneath the high standards expected”

Elsevier says it is reassessing its procedures for special issues after one of its journals issued expressions of concern for six such publications, involving as many as 400 articles, over worries that the peer review process was compromised.

The journal, Microprocessors & Microsystems, published the special issues using guest editors.

The EoCs vary slightly, but the journal has issued the following blanket statement for these six issues:

‘They seem to mean business’: Cardiology journal flags papers cited hundreds of times

A European cardiology journal has issued expressions of concern for seven widely-cited papers dating back to 2009 after a reader flagged suspicious images in the articles.

Although the cast of characters changes, the senior author on all seven papers is Chao-Ke Tang, of the First Affiliated Hospital of the University of South China, in Hengyang, Hunan. To date, at least 15 of Tang’s papers have come under scrutiny on PubPeer. Two months ago, for example, Elisabeth Bik posted about “unexpected similarities” in multiple figures in a 2013 paper by Tang and colleagues that appeared in PLoS ONE.

But Sander Kersten, the chair of Nutrition, Metabolism and Genomics and Division of Human Nutrition and Health at Wageningen University in The Netherlands, said he believes that the researcher’s output for roughly the past decade is unreliable.

Kersten said his concerns about Tang date back to 2014, when he reviewed — negatively — a manuscript for Atherosclerosis, an Elsevier title, from the researcher:

Nature corrects a correction on conflicts of interest in fish farming paper

Nature seems to be having a bit of trouble sorting out its policies regarding conflict of interest statements.

In late April, as we reported, the journal corrected a paper on fish farming after a journalist pointed out that the first author had undisclosed ties to the agribusiness giant Cargill. (The New York Times, which had covered the paper, also corrected a story.) At the time, the reporter, Tim Schwab, noted that several of the other authors also appeared to have undeclared conflicts of interest, but the journal had not taken steps to illuminate those.

How well do databases and journals indicate retractions? Hint: Inconsistently.

Retraction Watch readers may recall the work of Elizabeth Suelzer, a librarian at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee. Two years ago, she and colleagues published a study on why the infamous — and fraudulent — 1998 paper by Andrew Wakefield alleging a link between vaccine and autism had been cited more than 1,000 times. As Suelzer notes in the Q&A below, that work led to more questions about how well bibliographic databases and journal publishers display retraction status, when appropriate. The answer, they report in JAMA Network Open this week: They were inconsistent.

Retraction Watch (RW): What prompted you to do this study?

“If the data were not [correct], whose fault is this?” Authors of highly criticized COVID-19 vaccine study defend it

Earlier this week, we reported that a paper claiming that two deaths resulted from COVID-19 vaccination for every three cases that were prevented had earned an expression of concern.

[Please see an update on this post; the paper has been retracted.]

The authors, including Harald Walach, who was also co-author of a just-published paper in JAMA Pediatrics questioning the safety of masks in children, had used data from the Dutch national registry of side effects. That registry carries a warning label about its use. The editors of Vaccines, which published the study last month, wrote that there were concerns over “misrepresentation of the COVID-19 vaccination efforts and misrepresentation of the data.”

A scientist critic was sued, and won — but did not emerge unscathed. This is his story.

Retraction Watch readers may be familiar with the name David Sanders. Sanders, a biologist at Purdue University, has become a scientific sleuth, ferreting out problems in numerous papers. In one of those cases, that of Ohio State University professor Carlo Croce, Sanders ended up being sued — before an article in which he was quoted even came out. He eventually prevailed, but the episode left a mark, as readers will learn in this Q&A. (It has left a mark on Croce, too, in the form of 10 retractions and two suits brought by teams of lawyers for unpaid bills.)

Retraction Watch (RW): Carlo Croce sued you in 2017. Why?

Ten journals denied 2020 Impact Factors because of excessive self-citation or “citation stacking”

Clarivate, the company behind the Impact Factor, a closely watched — and controversial — metric, is calling out more than 20 journals for unusual citation patterns.

The 21 journals — 10 of which were suppressed, meaning they will not receive an Impact Factor in 2020, and 11 of which received an expression of concern — are fewer than half of the nearly 50 that the company suppressed or subjected to an expression of concern last year from its Journal Citation Report (JCR). The suppressions, the company notes, represent .05% of the journals listed — a total that increased dramatically this year from about 12,000 to about 20,000.

Clarivate suppressed 10 journals for excessive self-citation which inflates the Impact Factor, or for “citation-stacking,” sometimes referred to as taking part in “citation cartels” or “citation rings:”

Paper claiming two deaths from COVID-19 vaccination for every three prevented cases earns expression of concern

A study published last week that quickly became another flashpoint for those arguing that COVID-19 vaccines are unsafe has earned an expression of concern.

[Please see an update on this post; the paper has been retracted.]

The original paper, published in the MDPI title Vaccines, claimed that:

The number of cases experiencing adverse reactions has been reported to be 700 per 100,000 vaccinations. Currently, we see 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations, and the number of fatal side effects is at 4.11/100,000 vaccinations. For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination.

However, the study’s methods quickly drew scrutiny, and at least two members of Vaccines’ editorial board, Mount Sinai virologist Florian Krammer and Oxford immunologist Katie Ewer, said they have stepped down to protest the publication of the paper.

‘A fig leaf that doesn’t quite cover up’: Commission says philosopher engaged in ‘unacknowledged borrowings’ but not plagiarism

A philosopher with a double-digit retraction count did not commit plagiarism, according to a report released this weekend by France’s Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), where the researcher is employed.

Magali Roques has had 11 papers retracted from seven different journals, most of which referred to plagiarism in their notices. But as Daily Nous, which was first to report on the CNRS findings and which has been writing about the case for some months, notes, the commission says Roques’ “writings contain ‘neither academic fraud nor plagiarism properly so called.’” The report differentiates “plagiarism properly so called” from “unacknowledged borrowings,” evidence of which the commission found.

According to the report commissioned by CNRS:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: