Exercise researcher earns more retractions as investigations mount

Co-author James Steele, one of the sleuths who brought the issues to attention

Retractions are slowly stacking up for an exercise researcher in Brazil whose work has come under scrutiny by data sleuths, including a couple of his erstwhile co-authors. The concerns prompted an investigation by his former institution into one of his academic supervisors, who may be facing sanctions, Retraction Watch has learned. 

In June 2020, the sleuths posted a preprint calling for the retraction of seven papers by the researcher, Matheus Barbalho, a PhD student at the Centro de Ciências Biológicas e da Saúde, part of the  Universidade da Amazônia, in Belém. The reason, according to the sleuths – who  included James Steele and James Fisher, of Solent University in the United Kingdom, both of whom were co-authors on papers with Barbalho: the data were, in their view “atypical, improbable, and to put it bluntly, pretty weird.”

Since then, journals have retracted two of Barbalho’s papers (he had lost one in April 2020), citing concerns about the data in the articles. 

Continue reading Exercise researcher earns more retractions as investigations mount

Exercise science grad student at Australian university dismissed after he admitted faking data, says supervisor

A physiology journal has retracted a pair of papers from a group in Australia after learning that the flawed work was the subject of an institutional investigation.

The articles, both of which were published last year in The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, came from a group at the Murdoch Applied Sports Science Laboratory, part of Murdoch University. The first author on both papers was Liam J. Hughes, a PhD student at Murdoch who was terminated as a result of the misconduct. 

Continue reading Exercise science grad student at Australian university dismissed after he admitted faking data, says supervisor

Calling exercise data “atypical, improbable, and to put it bluntly, pretty weird,” sleuths call for seven retractions

Sleuth James Steele

A group of data sleuths is calling for the retraction of seven articles by an exercise physiologist in Brazil whose data they believe to be “highly unlikely” to have occurred experimentally.

In a preprint posted to the server SportRxiv, the group — led by Andrew Vigotsky, a biomedical engineer at Northwestern University — details their concerns about the work of Matheus Barbalho, a PhD student at the Centro de Ciências Biológicas e da Saúde, part of the  Universidade da Amazônia, in Belém. Barbalho’s mentor is Paulo Gentil.  

In addition to the preprint, titled “Improbable data patterns in the work of Barbalho et al,” Greg Nuckols, one of the coauthors, has posted a lengthy “explainer” about the analysis. 

The Brazilian group already has one retraction, for a study in the International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance titled “Evidence of a ceiling effect for training volume in muscle hypertrophy and strength in trained men—less is more?” According to the notice

Continue reading Calling exercise data “atypical, improbable, and to put it bluntly, pretty weird,” sleuths call for seven retractions

‘Harming‌ ‌the‌ ‌scientific‌ ‌process‌:’ An attempt to correct the sports science literature, part 3

Matthew Tenan

Why is it so difficult to correct the scientific record in sports science? In the first installment in this series of guest posts, Matthew Tenan, a data scientist with a PhD in neuroscience, began the story of how he and some colleagues came to scrutinize a paper. In the second, he explained what happened next. In today’s final installment, he reflects on the editors’ response and what he thinks it means for his field.

In‌ ‌refusing‌ ‌to‌ ‌retract‌ ‌the‌ ‌Dankel‌ ‌and‌ ‌Loenneke‌ ‌manuscript‌ ‌we‌ ‌showed‌ ‌to‌ ‌be‌ ‌mathematically‌ ‌flawed,‌ ‌the‌ ‌editors‌ referred to “feedback‌ ‌from‌ ‌someone‌ ‌with‌ ‌greater‌ ‌expertise”‌ and ‌included‌ ‌the‌ ‌following:‌ ‌

Continue reading ‘Harming‌ ‌the‌ ‌scientific‌ ‌process‌:’ An attempt to correct the sports science literature, part 3

‘A flawed decision:’ What happened when sports scientists tried to correct the scientific record, part 2

Matthew Tenan

Why is it so difficult to correct the scientific record in sports science? In the first installment in this series of guest posts, Matthew Tenan, a data scientist with a PhD in neuroscience, began the story of how he and some colleagues came to scrutinize a paper. In this post, he explains what happened next.

The‌ ‌journal‌ ‌Sports‌ ‌Medicine‌ ‌is‌ ‌widely‌ ‌considered‌ ‌one‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌top‌ ‌journals‌ ‌–‌ ‌if‌ ‌not‌ ‌the‌ ‌top‌ ‌journal‌ ‌–‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌fields‌ ‌of‌ ‌sport‌ ‌science,‌ ‌exercise‌ ‌science‌ ‌and‌ ‌physical‌ ‌education.‌  ‌This‌ ‌journal‌ ‌is‌ ‌managed‌ ‌by‌ ‌two‌ ‌professional‌ ‌editors‌ ‌who‌ ‌do‌ ‌not‌ ‌hold‌ ‌PhDs‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌journal’s‌ ‌subject‌ ‌area‌ ‌but‌ ‌are‌ ‌generally‌ ‌versed‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌topic‌ ‌and‌ ‌have‌ ‌the‌ ‌goal‌ ‌of‌ ‌managing‌ ‌a‌ ‌successful‌ ‌journal‌ ‌for‌ ‌SpringerNature.‌ ‌

The‌ ‌manuscript‌ ‌by‌ ‌Dankel‌ ‌and‌ ‌Loenneke‌ ‌was‌ ‌reviewed‌ ‌by‌ ‌three‌ ‌reviewers.‌  ‌I‌ ‌know‌ ‌this‌ ‌because‌ ‌I‌ ‌was‌ ‌one‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌reviewers‌ ‌and,‌ ‌as‌ ‌noted‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌first‌ ‌post‌ ‌in‌ ‌this‌ ‌series,‌ ‌I‌ ‌strongly‌ ‌advised‌ ‌against‌ ‌its‌ ‌publication.‌ ‌Greg‌ ‌Atkinson,‌ ‌a‌ ‌practicing‌ ‌scientist‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌area‌ ‌of‌ ‌health‌ sciences,‌ ‌has‌ ‌publicly‌ ‌stated‌, in a private Facebook group, that he‌ ‌was‌ ‌one‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌reviewers‌ ‌who‌ ‌recommended‌ ‌the‌ ‌paper‌ be‌ ‌published.‌ ‌Both‌ ‌myself,‌ ‌Atkinson,‌ ‌and‌ ‌the‌ ‌senior‌ ‌author‌ ‌on‌ ‌the‌ ‌manuscript,‌ ‌Loenneke,‌ ‌sit‌ ‌on‌ the‌ ‌editorial‌ ‌board‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌journal‌ ‌Sports‌ ‌Medicine.‌ ‌And‌ ‌while‌ ‌the‌ ‌paper‌ ‌published‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌journal‌ ‌by‌ ‌Dankel‌ ‌and‌ ‌Loenneke‌ ‌proposes‌ ‌a‌ ‌novel‌ ‌statistical‌ ‌method,‌ ‌neither‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌two‌ ‌authors‌ ‌on‌ ‌the‌ ‌manuscript,‌ ‌myself,‌ ‌nor‌ ‌Atkinson,‌ ‌have‌ ‌PhDs‌ ‌in‌ ‌statistics.‌ ‌The‌ ‌published‌ ‌paper‌ ‌does‌ ‌not‌ ‌cite‌ ‌a‌ ‌single‌ ‌statistics‌ ‌journal‌ ‌in‌ ‌the‌ ‌course‌ ‌of‌ ‌reporting‌ ‌their‌ ‌“novel‌ ‌method.”‌

‌What‌ ‌could‌ ‌go‌ ‌wrong,‌ ‌right?‌ ‌

Continue reading ‘A flawed decision:’ What happened when sports scientists tried to correct the scientific record, part 2

Why — even after reforms for an episode involving bad statistics — is it so difficult to correct the sports medicine literature? Part 1

Matthew Tenan

Two years ago, following heated debate, a sports science journal banned a statistical method from its pages, and a different journal — which had published a defense of that method earlier — decided to boost its statistical chops. But as Matthew Tenan, a data scientist with a PhD in neuroscience relates in this three-part series, that doesn’t seem to have made it any easier to correct the scientific record. Here’s part one.

In‌ ‌July‌ ‌2019,‌ ‌my‌ ‌colleague‌ ‌‌Andrew‌ ‌Vigotsky‌‌ ‌contacted‌ ‌me.‌ ‌He‌ ‌was‌ ‌curious,‌ ‌he‌ ‌said,‌ ‌whether‌ ‌a‌ paper‌ ‌published‌ ‌in‌ ‌Sports‌ ‌Medicine‌ ‌had‌ ‌undergone‌ ‌statistical‌ ‌review ‌ ‌because‌ ‌he‌ ‌was‌ concerned‌ ‌about‌ ‌some‌ ‌of‌ ‌its‌ ‌claims.‌ ‌The‌ ‌link‌ ‌he‌ ‌sent‌ ‌me‌ ‌was‌ ‌to‌ ‌“‌A‌ ‌Method‌ ‌to‌ ‌Stop‌ ‌Analyzing‌ Random‌ ‌Error‌ ‌and‌ ‌Start‌ ‌Analyzing‌ ‌Differential‌ ‌Responders‌ ‌to‌ ‌Exercise‌,”‌ ‌a‌ ‌paper‌ ‌published‌ ‌on‌ June‌ ‌28,‌ ‌2019‌ ‌by‌ ‌‌Scott‌ ‌Dankel‌‌ ‌and‌ ‌‌Jeremy‌ ‌Loenneke‌.‌

As‌ ‌it‌ ‌happened,‌ ‌I‌ ‌knew‌ ‌that‌ ‌paper,‌ ‌and‌ ‌I‌ ‌had‌ ‌also‌ ‌expressed‌ ‌concerns‌ ‌about‌ ‌it‌ ‌–‌ ‌when‌ ‌I reviewed‌ ‌it‌ ‌before‌ ‌publication‌ ‌as‌ ‌one‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌members‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌journal’s‌ ‌editorial‌ ‌board.‌ ‌Indeed,‌ ‌I was‌ ‌brought‌ ‌on‌ ‌to‌ ‌the‌ ‌editorial‌ ‌board‌ ‌of‌ ‌‌Sports‌ ‌Medicine‌‌ ‌because‌ ‌the‌ ‌journal‌ ‌had‌ ‌recently‌ received‌ ‌a‌ ‌lot‌ ‌of‌ ‌bad‌ ‌press‌ ‌for‌ ‌publishing‌ ‌a‌ ‌paper‌ ‌about‌ ‌another‌ ‌“novel‌ ‌statistical‌ ‌method”‌ ‌with‌ significant‌ ‌issues and I had been a vocal critic of the sports medicine and sport science‌ field developing their own statistical methods that are not used outside of the field and validated by the wider statistics community.‌ ‌

Continue reading Why — even after reforms for an episode involving bad statistics — is it so difficult to correct the sports medicine literature? Part 1

Paper used to support ban on Caster Semenya competing earns massive correction

Caster Semenya

The authors of a controversial paper on what constitutes “normal” hormone levels in men and women  — and, by implication, “male” and “female” athletes — are set to issue a massive correction of the work, Retraction Watch has learned. But an outside, albeit not disinterested, researcher who prompted the correction says the correction itself is amiss. 

The article, “Large divergence in testosterone concentrations between men and women: frame of reference for elite athletes in sex-specific competition in sports, a narrative review,” appeared earlier this year in Clinical Endocrinology, a Wiley title. The authors of the meta-analysis, led by Richard Clark, of the US Anti‐Doping Agency, argued that testosterone levels between the sexes do not overlap in the absence of chromosomal or genetic anomalies that blur the distinction between male and female. 

That finding was cited recently by an architect of the International Association of Athletics Federations’ decision to bar the South African trackstar, Caster Semenya, and other “hyperandrogenic” women (Semenya’s hormonal status has not been made public) whose hormonal constitution is arguably more male than female. 

Continue reading Paper used to support ban on Caster Semenya competing earns massive correction

CrossFit demands retraction of paper claiming their participants are more likely to be injured

via U.S. Army

Saying that a paper has “fatal and disqualifying errors,” CrossFit is demanding the retraction of a recently published article that claimed those participating in CrossFit “are more likely to be injured and to seek medical treatment compared with participants in traditional weightlifting.”

The paper, “Likelihood of Injury and Medical Care Between CrossFit and Traditional Weightlifting Participants,” was published on May 7 in the Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine.

In a May 17 letter to the journal’s editor and the paper’s corresponding author, CrossFit general counsel Marshall Brenner said the article

Continue reading CrossFit demands retraction of paper claiming their participants are more likely to be injured

Journals flag two papers by prominent researcher — who is also on trial for domestic abuse

Adeel Safdar was once a rising star in the field of kinesiology. After completing his doctorate degree at McMaster University in Canada, working with one of the titans of his field, Safdar took a postdoc at Harvard, then accepted a newly created chair position at another university in Ontario.

That all came crashing down last year, when Safdar went on trial in Canada, accused of horrifically abusing his wife. Over the course of the trial, allegations arose about his research, prompting two journals to flag papers he co-authored with his former mentor, Mark Tarnopolsky.

Tarnopolsky — author of more than 400 papers, which have collectively been cited more than 17,000 times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science — told Retraction Watch:

Continue reading Journals flag two papers by prominent researcher — who is also on trial for domestic abuse

Second paper tied to drug scandal in Norway ski team retracted

Researchers in Norway have retracted a second high-profile exercise paper — again after running afoul of an ethical approval committee.

As part of the 2016 study, the researchers gave athletes asthma medication to measure its effect on signals from the nervous system to the lungs; although the drug appeared to have no detectable effect on the nervous system signals, 45 minutes after getting the drug, athletes (including those without asthma) showed an average slight increase in one measure of lung function.

Annette Birkeland, of The Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees (FEK), told us:

Continue reading Second paper tied to drug scandal in Norway ski team retracted