A Wiley journal has retracted more than two dozen articles in the last few months for peer review issues.
The articles, which appeared in Environmental Toxicology, have been retracted in batches, the latest on February 16-17, with previous sets in January and November.
The retraction notices of all 26 papers read in part:
Continue reading Wiley journal retracts 26 papers for ‘compromised peer review’
Nick Wise had a prolific start to his sleuthing journey. In July 2021, the fluid dynamics researcher started looking for tortured phrases in published papers, and has since had a hand in at least 1,000 retractions. He also helped identify unique phrases for the Tortured Phrases Detector, a function of the Problematic Paper Screener that identifies signs of misconduct. Last month, Wise teamed up with other research fraud hunters in a Nature article that outlined “five essential steps to combat industrialized scientific misconduct.”
His success in calling out research misconduct helped him land a full-time job. In January, Wise started a new position as research integrity manager at publisher Taylor & Francis. We spoke with him about how his new position will impact his career trajectory and how he plans to use his sleuthing past in his new position.
Continue reading When a sleuth gets hired by a publisher: A Q&A with Nick Wise
The 3,000+ journals in the Springer Nature portfolio published over 482,000 articles in 2024, according to data published this week on a new research integrity page on the company’s website. The page also shares a data point you don’t typically get from publishers: 2,923 articles were retracted.
The numbers are a small part of the page, which outlines the tools the publisher uses for quality control, what prompts a research integrity investigation, and what happens during such investigations.
The publisher breaks down the retraction numbers a little more:
Continue reading Springer Nature retracted 2,923 papers last year
Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?
The week at Retraction Watch featured:
Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 500. There are more than 55,000 retractions in The Retraction Watch Database — which is now part of Crossref. The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker now contains more than 300 titles. And have you seen our leaderboard of authors with the most retractions lately — or our list of top 10 most highly cited retracted papers? What about The Retraction Watch Mass Resignations List — or our list of nearly 100 papers with evidence they were written by ChatGPT?
Here’s what was happening elsewhere (some of these items may be paywalled, metered access, or require free registration to read):
Continue reading Weekend reads: ‘Why I retracted part of my PhD dissertation’; second NIH official departs; Bik fund
The chief editors of the journal Sedimentology have resigned, along with nearly a third of its associate editors, as the society running the title amended its publishing contract.
The International Association of Sedimentologists (IAS), a scientific society based in Belgium, owns the journal and contracts with Wiley to publish it.
The IAS had run an operating deficit since its 2021-22 fiscal year, and began discussing “legal, financial, and strategic considerations” in October 2023, according to a letter from IAS acting president Daniel Ariztegui to its members. These moves included changes to the handling of manuscripts and copy-editing at Sedimentology and an amendment to the society’s contract with Wiley.
Continue reading Editors resign from sedimentology society journal amid ‘extraordinary and troubling times’
A 2017 paper coauthored by Nobel laureate Thomas Südhof has been retracted.
The article, “Conditional Deletion of All Neurexins Defines Diversity of Essential Synaptic Organizer Functions for Neurexins,” was published in Neuron in May 2017 and has been cited 145 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.
The retraction notice, issued February 11, states:
Continue reading ICYMI: Second paper by Nobel laureate Thomas Südhof retractedWe, the authors of this publication, have decided to retract the paper because we found that the images in Figure 1D and Figure S4B contain aberrations that cannot be explained, and the original data for these figures are missing. Raw data for the other components of the paper are available, and their reanalysis confirmed the conclusions of the paper. We would like to thank M. Schrag for bringing these image aberrations to our attention.
When scientists face critique of their published work, they should be proactive in responding to the issues and to questions about it from the public and the media, says Science editor-in-chief Holden Thorp in an editorial in the Feb. 14 Science.
“In an age of growing, intense attacks on science, silence can be detrimental to both public trust and the careers of scientists who are under scrutiny,” writes Thorp and coauthor Meagan Phelan, communications director for Science. “For better or worse, journalists, social media professionals, and the public may take a response of ‘no comment’ as a concession that the critics are correct, so forthright communication about research questions is more urgent than ever.”
Continue reading ICYMI: Science editor encourages addressing integrity questions publicly
We’re thrilled to be partnering with foremost scientific sleuth Elisabeth Bik on a new way to support scientific integrity: The Elisabeth Bik Science Integrity Fund.
Bik is a renowned science integrity advocate and microbiologist who investigates and exposes research misconduct, including image duplication and data manipulation, to uphold transparency and ethical standards in scientific publishing.
The Fund, launched with the proceeds of Bik’s Einstein Award, will provide financial resources to Bik and other sleuths and collaborators, as well as provide funding for training programs, grants, or awards for science integrity advocates. Plans also include funding educational or outreach initiatives promoting transparency and accountability in scientific research. Based on a fiscal sponsorship model, and leveraging our experience in nonprofit development and administration, Bik will have full direction over the Fund’s resources.
Continue reading Announcing the Elisabeth Bik Science Integrity Fund
Two papers on a novel approach for flood prediction have been retracted for “substantial overlap” between the works. The authors, including Debopam Acharya, dean of the School of Computing at DIT University in Uttarakhand, India, are contesting both retractions.
The articles, published in 2023, are “FLOODALERT: an internet of things based real-time flash flood tracking and prediction system,” which appeared in Multimedia Tools and Applications, and “An IoT-based system for monitoring and forecasting flash floods in real-time,” from Journal of Earth System Science. They have been cited seven and five times, respectively.
The articles were retracted after a concerned researcher, who also reached out to Retraction Watch, emailed each journal about problems with the papers.
Continue reading Two papers coauthored by a dean retracted, with a third in question
Science is finally considering retracting a 2010 paper claiming the discovery of a bacterium that could substitute arsenic for phosphorus in its chemical makeup. “We feel the best thing to do would be to retract the paper,” the journal’s editor-in-chief Holden Thorp told the New York Times in an article published Tuesday.
The article follows up with Felisa Wolfe-Simon, the lead author of the work who withdrew from science and public life after the intense spotlight from the work’s initial splash led to damaging criticism. She has recently gone back to the lab and in 2024 received a NASA exobiology grant.
Retraction Watch readers may recall that Science published numerous technical comments and two studies refuting the original work. In 2012, David Sanders — who would later become well-known as a sleuth — said in our pages that the “only responsible action on the part of Science would be to retract the original article.” He called again for the retraction in 2021.
Continue reading ICYMI: Science is considering retracting ‘arsenic life’ paper