by reason for retraction – Page 38

HHS takes three and a half years to tell us “there are no records responsive to your request”…for a letter we know exists

If you file public records requests regularly, you have likely become used to how long they can take, and how few documents you may end up with. We certainly have. But we’re prompted to share a particularly frustrating experience with the NIH.

Settle in. This is a three-and-a-half year tale — and counting.

On May 8, 2018, we made a public records request to the NIH under the Freedom of Information Act for “Any Correspondence between the Office of Policy for Extramural Research Administration (OPERA) and officials at Duke University during the month of March 2018.” We did so because, as we reported on March 23, 2018 in Science, the NIH had:

Report by former Motherisk lab director of cocaine exposure in a child is subjected to an expression of concern

A pediatrics journal has issued an expression of concern for a 2007 paper by a group of Canadian researchers whose leader, Gideon Koren, resigned in 2015 under a cloud after concerns surfaced about the integrity of the data in hundreds of his published studies.

Koren, once a prominent pediatrician and pharmacologist at the University of Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children, ran the institution’s Motherisk Drug Testing Laboratory, which conducted hair testing for perinatal exposure to drugs and alcohol. In 2015, an investigation prompted by The Toronto Star found serious problems with the tests, which had been used in “used in thousands of child protection cases and several criminal cases.”

Koren stepped down that year, and in 2019 relinquished his license to practice medicine in Ontario. Reporting by the Star prompted Koren’s institution to order a review of more than 400 of his published papers. To date, by our count, journals have retracted five of Koren’s papers, corrected four, and have now issued three expressions of concern.

The newly flagged article, “Chronic cocaine exposure in a toddler revealed by hair test,” appeared in Clinical Pediatrics in 2007. Here’s the notice:

Exclusive: Urology researcher demoted after misconduct investigation — then becomes chair at another school

A urology researcher at Louisiana State University lost his post as department chair after a misconduct investigation, Retraction Watch has learned. But he eventually moved on to be department chair at a different LSU campus — where he remains today.

In June, we reported that the work of urology researcher Hari Koul had been investigated by his former employer, the University of Colorado, following a recommendation by LSU. But between the time the misconduct investigation concluded in 2014 and the publication of our story, only three of nine papers by Koul that Colorado recommended for corrections or retractions had been amended in any way. More of those publications have been retracted following our story, the reporting of which was how some editors learned of the issues.

Now, via a public records request, we’ve gained access to the inquiry at LSU which led to the investigation at CU Denver and includes notes from interviews with Koul and his postdoc. The Denver investigation didn’t find Koul guilty of misconduct, but it found many errors in his published work, leading LSU’s Health Science Center in Shreveport to demote him in 2016. After several years of apparently unrelated legal battles with LSU’s Health Science Center in Shreveport, Koul moved to a different LSU institution, LSU Health Sciences Center in New Orleans, last year.

Plagiarism of a thesis earns authors a retraction — and a two-year-publishing ban

Enamul Haque, whose master’s thesis was plagiarized by other authors

In June of this year, Enamul Haque, a PhD student at the University of Waterloo, in Canada, came across an article in the International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications (IJACSA).

It looked familiar.

That’s because it was copied, in large part, from Haque’s master’s thesis, which he had completed at Canada’s McMaster University and submitted the previous year. Haque wrote to Kohei Arai, the journal’s editor in chief, on June 30, providing detailed evidence of plagiarism:

Scientist blames grad student for gibberish book chapter — a charge she calls ‘crazy’

Guillaume Cabanac

The senior author of a book chapter in the 2020 volume that Springer Nature has retracted for plagiarism has blamed a former grad student from Cuba in the affair — a charge she dismisses as “crazy.”

The chapter was retracted nearly 10 months after readers pointed out passages that had appeared to have been churned out by the fake paper generator Mathgen.

Titled “Ethnic Characterization in Amalgamated People for Airport Security Using a Repository of Images and Pigeon-Inspired Optimization (PIO) Algorithm for the Improvement of Their Results,” the material was ostensibly written by a group at Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez led by Alberto Ochoa-Zezzatti. It appeared in “Applications of Hybrid Metaheuristic Algorithms for Image Processing,” which belongs to the 982-volume (and counting) Studies in Computational Intelligence series.

Last December, commenters on PubPeer including Guillaume Cabanac and Cyril Labbé — who will be familiar to readers of this blog for their exposure of nonsensical papers with “tortured” language showing signs of plagiarism — pointed out at least one problematic passage in the chapter:

When ‘out of print’ really means ‘retracted’

Image by eberhard grossgasteiger from Pixabay

We’ve taken publishers to task for disappearing articles without providing readers an explanation for the move. Turns out, they do the same with books, too.

In September 2014, Springer Nature published “Beekeeping for Poverty Alleviation and Livelihood Security Vol 1: Technological Aspects of Beekeeping,” described as:

Company fires employee, ends cash for citation scheme following Retraction Watch post

A company that had offered payment for citations of articles in various journals has ended the practice, and fired the staffer it said was responsible, following reporting by Retraction Watch.

On August 31, we reported that Innoscience Innoscience Research, in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, was offering $6 per citation of papers in five different journals, and up to five cites, or $30, per paper, or $150 in total across all five journals. Since then, two journals have distanced themselves from the scheme.

Yesterday, Innoscience told us by email:

Another journal distances itself from cash for citations after Retraction Watch report

A second journal has said it was unaware of a cash for citations scheme that named it as a participant, following our reporting in August.

The Journal of Clinical and Translational Research (JCTR) was one of five journals listed by Innoscience Research that Innoscience would pay $6 per citation to its work, as we reported on August 31. On October 9, another of those journals said it “will not entertain cash requests from the individuals who claim to have cited our articles, nor shall we pay up.”

In “JCTR’s statement on ‘paid citations’ reported by Retraction Watch,” dated October 10, editor in chief Michal Heger writes:

A correction is retracted (sort of)

Thanks to a publisher’s error, a group of infectious disease researchers has experienced a double negative for their 2020 article on tick-borne illness in South Africa.

The paper, “Serum-free in vitro cultivation of Theileria annulata and Theileria parva schizont-infected lymphocytes,” appeared in Transboundary and Emerging Diseases, a Wiley title. The authors were affiliated with institutions in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and the United States.

Earlier this year, the authors corrected their article. The notice, dated May 26, reads:

Journal distances itself from cash for citations scheme after Retraction Watch report

A journal that appeared to be involved in a scheme in which authors were paid bonuses to cite its papers has said it “will not entertain cash requests from the individuals who claim to have cited our articles, nor shall we pay up.”

The comments come about a month after a Retraction Watch post detailing the scheme by Innoscience Research listing five journals, one of which was the International Journal of Bioprinting. Innoscience, who has not responded to requests for comment, does not publish the IJB; Whoice does. It’s unclear whether there is a relationship between the two companies.

In a statement dated October 9, the IJB wrote:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: