Another setback for ‘Majorana’ particle as Science paper earns an expression of concern

Ettore Majorana, after whom the “Majorana” particle is named
By unknown author / Mondadori Collection, public domain

You might say that the third time is not the charm for a paper on some elusive fermions.

For the third time this year, a leading science journal has raised concerns about a paper on the “Majorana” particle, which, if it exists, would hold promise for building a quantum computer.

In March, Nature retracted a paper on the particle, and in July, Science placed an expression of concern on a different paper that purported to find “a relatively easy route to creating and controlling [Majorana zero modes] MZMs in hybrid materials.”

Today, Science is slapping an expression of concern on another Majorana paper:

Continue reading Another setback for ‘Majorana’ particle as Science paper earns an expression of concern

Journal retracts 122 papers at once

A SAGE journal has retracted 122 papers because of “clear indicators that the submission and/or peer review process for these papers was manipulated.”

Those indicators, according to The International Journal of Electrical Engineering & Education: 

include but are not limited to submission patterns consistent with the use of paper mills, collusion between authors and reviewers during the review process, inappropriate subject matter as compared to the Journal’s Aims and Scope, poor quality peer review and requests for inappropriate citation.

A look at the first three titles suggests that they were, indeed, far out of scope:

Continue reading Journal retracts 122 papers at once

Paper retracted because authors ‘misrepresented a published theoretical model as if they had found it’

A physics journal has retracted a 2017 paper after learning that the authors had tried to pass off the ideas of others as their own. 

Normally, we’d just call that a case of plagiarism and move on. But in this case, the charge goes a bit deeper – less cribbing a few lines of the Principia and more claiming to have discovered gravity. 

“Exploring multiband tunneling for uncoupled particles: A polynomial view,” was written by a group of a half-dozen researchers in Mexico City, Uruguay and Cuba, where senior author Leo Diago-Cisneros sits on the faculty of the University of Havana. 

The paper, which appeared in the Journal of Applied Physics, purported to describe:

Continue reading Paper retracted because authors ‘misrepresented a published theoretical model as if they had found it’

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

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

Researcher uses fake email address to submit a paper mill manuscript without corresponding author’s knowledge

A Springer Nature journal has retracted a paper sourced from a paper mill – not an uncommon occurrence nowadays. What adds a bit of intrigue is that the manuscript was submitted with a fake email address to keep the alleged corresponding author from knowing about it.

The paper, “Electrophysiological Follow-Up of Patients with Chronic Peripheral Neuropathy Induced by Occupational Intoxication with n-Hexane,” was published in Cell Biochemistry and Biophysics on May 23, 2014 and has been cited 14 times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science.

Here’s the notice:

Continue reading Researcher uses fake email address to submit a paper mill manuscript without corresponding author’s knowledge

Weekend reads: Hundreds of researchers in China sanctioned; phony finance research; results of the cancer research reproducibility project

Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, we could really use your help. Would you consider a tax-deductible donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance.

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 200. There are now more than 31,000 retractions in our database — which now powers retraction alerts in EndNote, Papers, and Zotero. And have you seen our leaderboard of authors with the most retractions lately?

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: Hundreds of researchers in China sanctioned; phony finance research; results of the cancer research reproducibility project

Paper on canine gastrointestinal illness dogged by lack of disclosures

leisergu, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

A veterinary journal has retracted — in a big way — a 2021 paper about bowel disease in dogs by a group of authors who failed to disclose key conflicts of interest and then appear to have lied about the omission when pressed.

The article, “Utility of the combined use of 3 serologic markers in the diagnosis and monitoring of chronic enteropathies in dogs,” appeared in the Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine, an official title of the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine. 

The first author was Juan Estruch, of Vetica Labs, a rather opaque company based in San Diego and of which Estruch is listed in securities documents as having been the CEO back in 2015.

Continue reading Paper on canine gastrointestinal illness dogged by lack of disclosures

Scholar with a history of making up author names has a 1985 paper corrected

A scholar who famously fabricated a meeting between Charles Dickens and Fyodor Dostoevsky used a bogus name to publish a 1985 paper in the journal History –  and it was far from the first time. 

Arnold Harvey, also known as AD Harvey, apparently created a small (precisely how small is unclear) community of scholars, including Stephanie Harvey, Graham Headley, Trevor McGovern, John Schellenberger, Leo Bellingham, Michael Lindsay and Ludovico Parra, as well as the Latvian poet Janis Blodnieks. 

In a ruse outlined in this 2013 article for the Times Literary Supplement by Eric Naiman, of UC Berkeley, this fictitious klatch would critique each other’s papers. (Take note, peer review rings of the 2010s.)

As The Guardian wrote in a 2013 profile of Harvey that’s well worth a read:

Continue reading Scholar with a history of making up author names has a 1985 paper corrected

Student of yoga tourism won’t get PhD as he earns five retractions

Photo by Amanda Mills, USCDCP on Pixnio

For Pramod Sharma, the study of yoga tourism has proven to be a downward-facing dog. 

Last year, the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) in Roorkee blocked Sharma – who posed as a legit yoga researcher but in reality stole other people’s work – from receiving his PhD after determining that his thesis was “plagiarized and lacks originality.” What’s more, according to the institution, a 2018 article by Sharma contained a “discrepancy in data…casting a doubt on the validity of the results.” 

Journals have now retracted five papers by Sharma, although earlier concerns about the work didn’t reach his PhD committee in time to prevent him from defending his thesis in 2019. 

We reviewed the IIT report on the Sharma case, and pulled out a couple of the choicest passages:

Continue reading Student of yoga tourism won’t get PhD as he earns five retractions

Researchers sound alarm on ‘predatory’ rankings

Hey, researchers and universities, want to be included in a new ranking scheme? No problem, just pony up some cash. 

Tanvir Ahmed, a postdoc at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, says this year has seen a rise in news stories— for example from Bangladesh, Kashmir, and Nigeria —  reporting so-called predatory rankings. These come to light due to the lack of knowledge about rankings at universities and the media in certain countries, he says. 

Ahmed is referring to AD Scientific Index, which charges $30 USD for an individual researcher to be included in the ranking and an unspecified sum for institutions wishing to be ranked. 

Continue reading Researchers sound alarm on ‘predatory’ rankings