by subject – Retraction Watch

COPE’s involvement leads to retraction of paper on homeopathy for lung cancer

A journal that last year corrected a paper claiming to show a homeopathic intervention improved quality of life and survival for people with advanced lung cancer has now retracted the article after the Committee on Publication Ethics got involved in the case.

The extensive correction and an accompanying editorial, published in September 2024 in The Oncologist, came two years after the Austrian Agency for Scientific Integrity asked the journal to retract the article due to concerns about manipulated data, we reported at the time.

The retraction notice, published November 24, acknowledged the watchdog agency’s retraction request. It also noted the previous corrections and expression of concern for the article, which originally appeared in October 2020.

One of Kazakhstan’s top nuclear physicists also leads his nation in retractions

The head of a nuclear physics institute in Kazakhstan now has 21 retractions to his name — most of them logged in the past year — following dozens of his papers being flagged on PubPeer for data reuse and images showing suspiciously similar patterns of background noise, suggesting manipulation.

Maxim Zdorovets, director of the Institute of Nuclear Physics in Astana, has written or coauthored 480 papers indexed on Scopus, and one analysis puts him as the third most cited researcher in Kazakhstan. His prolific publication record has been linked to Russian paper mills, though those claims are unverified. Zdorovets has defended his work in a series of online posts, arguing the imaging similarities come from technical issues and that his own analyses prove image manipulation did not occur. He did not respond to Retraction Watch’s request for comment.

The latest retraction for Zdorovets came last month when Crystallography Reports retracted a study containing electron microscope images “highly similar” to those published a year earlier in a now-retracted paper in the Russian Journal of Electrochemistry by a similar group of authors. Both papers also included images that closely resemble ones Zdorovets and his colleagues presented at a nanomaterials conference in Ukraine in 2017. In each instance, the images were meant to be showing different materials.

Number of ‘unsafe’ publications by psychologist Hans Eysenck could be ‘high and far reaching’

A “high and far reaching” number of papers and books by Hans Eysenck could be “unsafe,” according to an updated statement from King’s College London, where the psychologist was a professor emeritus when he died in 1997.

A 2019 investigation launched by the U.K. institution found 26 papers coauthored by Eysenck and Ronald Grossarth-Maticek, a social scientist in Germany, were based on questionable data and contained findings that were “incompatible with modern clinical science and the understanding of disease processes.”

For example, the two researchers’ data showed people with a “cancer-prone” personality were more than 120 times as likely to die from the disease as were those with a “healthy” personality, Anthony Pelosi, a longtime Eysenck critic, pointed out in an article preceding the university probe.

Authors retract Nature paper projecting high costs of climate change

The authors of a highly publicized study predicting climate change would cost $38 trillion a year by 2049 have retracted their paper following criticism of the data and methodology, including that the estimate is inflated.

“The economic commitment of climate change,” which appeared April 17, 2024, in Nature, looked at how changes in temperature and precipitation could affect economic growth. Forbes, the San Diego Union-Tribune and other outlets covered the paper, which has been accessed over 300,000 times. It has been cited 168 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.

But after two commentaries published this August raised questions about the study’s data and methodology, the researchers revisited their findings. “The authors acknowledge that these changes are too substantial for a correction,” the retraction notice, published today, states.

Exclusive: Reviewer recommended against publishing paper on DNA in COVID vaccines

Rolf Marschalek was on vacation when he saw a new paper had been published in the journal Autoimmunity. Marschalek, a biochemist at Goethe University Frankfurt in Germany, was “very upset,” he told Retraction Watch – because he’d peer-reviewed the manuscript and had recommended against publication.

The authors of the paper claimed to find DNA in mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines above regulators’ suggested amounts. The article appeared online September 6, and within weeks the publisher began an investigation into concerns about its content, as we reported previously.

In Marschalek’s initial review, which he provided to us, he detailed how Qubit fluorometry, one of the methods the authors used to measure the amount of DNA in the vaccine vials, was “not suited” for use when samples contain much higher amounts of RNA than DNA, as is the case with mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines. He cited a paper he and colleagues had written about methods of quantifying amounts of RNA and DNA in mRNA vaccine vials, including Qubit.

Lancet journal retracts COVID-19 metformin paper nearly 2 years after authors request correction

A paper on a clinical trial of metformin for the treatment of COVID-19 has been retracted nearly two years after the authors flagged data issues that resulted in an expression of concern.

The results of the Brazil-based TOGETHER trial, published in December 2021 in The Lancet Regional Health–Americas, found metformin was no better than placebo at improving health outcomes in people with COVID-19. The study has been cited 45 times, 25 of which came after the expression of concern was published, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.

Early observational studies in people with COVID-19 found positive effects of metformin, an oral medication most often used for type 2 diabetes, including reduced disease severity and mortality rates. But clinical trials, including the now-retracted study and a more recent randomized trial, found no differences in time to recovery or disease severity between patients who got metformin and those who received placebo.

AI unreliable in identifying retracted research papers, says study

LLMs don’t reliably identify retracted papers, a new study finds. *(Image: DALL-E)*

Large language models should not be used to weed out retracted literature, a study of 21 chatbots concludes. Not only were the chatbots unreliable at correctly identifying retracted papers, they spit out different results when given the same prompts.

The “very simple study,” as lead author Konradin Metze called it, used LLM chatbots like ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, and others to see whether they would successfully identify retracted articles in a list of references.

Metze and colleagues compiled a list of 132 publications. The list comprised the 50 most cited, retracted papers by Joachim Boldt, a prolific German researcher who also sits at the top of the Retraction Watch Leaderboard. Another 50 were Boldt’s most cited non-retracted papers. The rest were works by other researchers with the last name “Boldt” and first initial of “J.” The study authors prompted each chatbot to indicate which of the listed references had been retracted.

AMA ethics journal shutters after 26 years

The American Medical Association will cease publication of its ethics journal at the end of this year.

The AMA Journal of Ethics, an open access, peer-reviewed journal was founded in 1999 under the name Virtual Mentor.

“The loss of the AMA JoE will be most acutely felt by medical students and trainees, since it had a unique production model that included them in the process,” said Matthew Wynia, a physician and bioethicist at the University of Colorado whose work has been featured in the journal and who previously led the AMA Institute for Ethics.

Journal retracts ‘bizarre’ placebo effect paper

An Elsevier journal has retracted a study on the placebo effect coauthored by a researcher known for extreme claims that have failed to withstand scrutiny. The move comes after critics said the researchers misunderstood “what a ‘treatment effect’ is.”

The study, published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology in December 2024, analyzed 30 clinical trials examining treatments for a total of five conditions. The authors concluded “the placebo-effect is the major driver of treatment effects in clinical trials that alone explains 69% of the variance.” It has been cited once, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.

The last author of the study is Harald Walach, who may be familiar to readers of Retraction Watch. In one now-retracted paper, Walach and his coauthors claimed the COVID-19 vaccines killed two people for every three deaths they prevented. In a different, also retracted paper, Walach and colleagues claimed children’s masks trap carbon dioxide. (They later republished the article in a different journal.)

Review mill in Italy targeting ob-gyn journals, researchers allege

Examples of “boilerplate” text used in the suspect reviews.
*M.A. Oviedo-Garcia et al/medRxiv 2025*

A network of peer reviewers in Italy is targeting medical journals, threatening “both the scientific record and patient safety,” a team of researchers report. Without more transparency by journals, they say, most review mills will remain impossible to detect.

In a preprint posted on medRxiv on October 23, sleuths Dorothy Bishop, René Aquarius and Maria Ángeles Oviedo-García say they discovered the alleged review mill when they stumbled upon seemingly “boilerplate” comments in a peer review. This discovery led the trio to search for published peer reviews that shared similar terminology — work that ultimately identified 195 suspect reviews of 170 articles published between Feb. 6, 2019, and July 7, 2025. The researchers speculate the number of articles affected is likely higher given most journals do not publish their peer reviews.

The alleged mill is run by “well-established, Italian physicians in the fields of gynecology and oncology,” wrote the authors of the new study, which also noted the reviewers were refereeing papers with clinical implications, a pattern the authors called “alarming.”

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: