Category: unhelpful retraction notices

An article about the overuse of spinal imaging has been retracted after the distributor of a chiropractic product it criticized in passing complained to the journal. 

The paper, “An investigation into the chiropractic practice and communication of routine repetitive radiographic imaging for the location of postural misalignments,” was retracted in June from the Journal of Clinical Imaging Science after the editor-in-chief learned it contained “controversial statements regarding the commercial product Denneroll,” according to the statement. 

Denneroll is a line of support products that purports to help with “spinal remodeling” for people whose spines aren’t curved in the normal way, according to a company brochure. The company’s website states that the Denneroll products are “second to none in spinal orthotics.”  

The retraction notice said Deed Harrison, a chiropractor whose family distributes the Denneroll product line, “claimed that the data presented against this product lacks scientific backing.” Harrison’s father, Donald Harrison, originated a technique called Chiropractic BioPhysics (CBP) which is the basis of the Denneroll product line, according to the CBP website. 

Continue reading Journal retracts paper on chiropractic product after distributor complains

Just four months after an allegedly stolen dinosaur fossil was returned from Germany to Brazil, a prominent European paleontologist published a paper bound to spark renewed controversy in an already-divided research community.

And so it did: Less than a month after the article, which criticized the online repatriation campaign, was published on October 2 in The Geological Curator, it vanished again. 

“This flawed corporatist rant, loaded with racist undertones, has been retracted,” Juan Carlos Cisneros of Universidade Federal do Piauí, in Teresina, Brazil, wrote on the social media platform X.

The reasons for the retraction are not entirely clear, but the journal may have faced external pressure, according to the paper’s author.

Continue reading ‘Trump’ vs. ‘Indiana Jones’: Paper reviving bitter quarrel over dino fossil pulled for murky reasons

This is an evolving story, and we will update as we learn more.

A paper in Springer Nature’s Scientific Reports claiming there was essentially no evidence that lockdowns prevented COVID-19 deaths has been retracted.

As of late Monday US Eastern time, while the PDF of the paper was marked “RETRACTED ARTICLE,” a link to the retraction notice’s DOI that had appeared on the page — but did not resolve to anything — had disappeared. The notice appeared at approximately 7 a.m. US Eastern on Tuesday.

Here’s the retraction notice, provided to us by Springer Nature Tuesday morning before it went live:

Continue reading Paper claiming a lack of evidence COVID-19 lockdowns work is retracted

A study which found that aerosolized novel coronavirus could be spread nearly 15 feet — twice what health officials had believed — has been retracted, but the journal isn’t saying why.

Practical Preventive Medicine published the paper in early March. Titled “An epidemiological investigation of 2019 novel coronavirus diseases through aerosol－borne transmission by public transport,” the authors, from institutions in China, looked at the spread of the virus on a bus linked to one infected passenger.  

According to the abstract: 

Continue reading Study claiming broader spread of aerosolized coronavirus is retracted

Fair warning: We’re really not sure what’s going on here.

The authors of “Effect of total flavonoids on expression of collagen, TGF-β1, and Smad 7 in hypertrophic scars,” a 2018 paper in the International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, have retracted it for, well, lots of reasons.

None of them is exactly clear.

Here’s the notice:

Continue reading “With great pity,” author retracts paper for “severe problems” including references that “are not allowed to be cited” and “severe law issues”

In early 2011, less than six months after we launched Retraction Watch, we came across a retraction from a surgery journal. The notice was scant on details, so co-founder Adam Marcus called the editor to ask why the paper had been retracted.

The answer: “It’s none of your damn business.”

It turns out that’s still the answer from some journal editors. In a recent paper, Mark Bolland, of the University of Auckland, and colleagues — including one journalist — found that when they contacted a dozen journals that had published nearly two dozen clinical trials “about which concerns had been previously raised,” “none of the 10 responses was considered very useful.” (The trials were all co-authored by the late Yoshihiro Sato, who is now up to 42 retractions.)

Unbeknownst to the authors, a Retraction Watch reporter was also contacting the same journals. How did we fare? Continue reading Journal editors still don’t like talking about misconduct. And that’s a problem.