Retraction Watch

Group’s second paper on potential treatments for COVID-19 is retracted

A group of researchers in Egypt have lost a second paper on possible treatments for Covid-19 after questions were raised about the legitimacy of their trial findings — and additional retractions might be coming soon.

As we reported in September, the group lost an article in Scientific Reports about a purported trial comparing favipiravir and hydroxychloroquine to treat the infection.

That move followed an expression of concern, issued in early August, for a paper in the Archives of Virology by Dabbous and his colleagues about favipiravir, titled “Efficacy of favipiravir in COVID-19 treatment: a multi-center randomized study.”

The journal has now retracted the article:

University of Glasgow ‘in discussions to retract’ seven papers, confirming Retraction Watch reporting

The University of Glasgow is “in discussions to retract” seven papers by a pharmacology researcher who worked there for more than 25 years, after it learned of allegations on PubPeer by pseudonymous whistleblower Clare Francis.

The development confirms reporting by Retraction Watch earlier this month. In that post, we wrote:

Highly cited cancer immunologist “seriously breached” research conduct code: Australia institute

A cancer immunologist who as of 2017 was “the most highly cited immunologist in Australia” has “seriously breached Codes relating to responsible research conduct,” according to his former employer.

QIMR Berghofer in Brisbane “has commissioned an independent external investigation after a number of complaints relating to the research conduct of a former employee Professor Mark Smyth,” the institute said in a statement.

The external investigation, led by a retired appeals court judge, Robert Gotterson, followed a preliminary investigation, according to QIMR Berghofer, which said it “has referred the findings to the Crime and Corruption Commission in accordance with its legislative obligations.” The institute has “also organised for an independent review into a broad range of issues arising out of the Panel Report” that will be conducted by former federal court judge Bruce Lander.

Journal mulls expression of concern for Cassava Sciences paper

A journal is considering issuing an expression of concern for a 2005 paper by authors tied to a company that’s now under investigation for fraud, Retraction Watch has learned.

[See an update on this post (bottom).]

The article, “Ultra-low-dose naloxone suppresses opioid tolerance, dependence and associated changes in mu opioid receptor–G protein coupling and Gβγ signaling,” was written by a group linked to Pain Therapeutics, Inc., which in 2019 changed its name to Cassava Sciences.

Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the National Institutes of Health were investigating claims that the company manipulated data for simulfilam, its experimental drug for Alzheimer’s disease.

As we reported in August, a law firm submitted a “citizen’s petition” to the FDA citing:

Author who squats on domains to fake affiliations and added Wolf Blitzer as a co-author up to a dozen retractions

A putative brain surgeon with a penchant for fabricating his affiliations and co-authors — including Wolf Blitzer of CNN — has lost several more papers to retraction.

As we reported in August, Michael George Zaki Ghali, or someone using that name:

bought two fake web domains for the Karolinska Institutet [KI] to make it look as though he was affiliated with the world-famous medical center and published seven dozen papers in peer reviewed journals owned by Elsevier, IMR Press, Taylor & Francis and Wiley. … Ghali has twice been ordered to turn over domain names linked to Karolinska the real institute, once in June 2020 and again in November 2020.

At the time, we were aware of seven retractions for Ghali, including the one co-bylined with Blitzer. That number has now grown to at least 12, by our count.

Weekend reads: An error in a PLOS journal leads to angry calls to Fauci; Jonathan Pruitt placed on leave; Cassava Sciences under SEC investigation

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:

Publisher retracts nearly 80 articles over three days
PNAS retracts paper that contributed to lung cancer trial
‘I have zero complaints about the process’: Post-publication analysis earns perception paper a flag
Co-author of paper claiming COVID-19 vaccines linked to miscarriage says he’s retracting it
Elsevier makes “sand, sun, sea and sex with strangers” paper disappear following criticism. And “Sand, sun, sea and sex with strangers” paper did not need human subjects research protection approval, says author
Stanford prof fights efforts to make him pay at least $75,000 in legal fees after dropping defamation suit

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 190. 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):

“Sand, sun, sea and sex with strangers” paper did not need human subjects research protection approval, says author

Sand dunes in the Canary Islands, image by Klaus Stebani from Pixabay

A now-temporarily retracted paper about how gay men seeking sex on the beach is damaging dunes that was criticized for its language — and for not mentioning any ethical approval — did not need such approval, one of the study’s authors said.

The study was carried out in 2018. But the Human Research Ethics Commitee at ULPGC did not weigh in on the work until September 2021. Luis Hernández-Calvento, the corresponding author of the paper and a professor at Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (ULPGC), explained to Retraction Watch:

Stanford prof fights efforts to make him pay at least $75,000 in legal fees after dropping defamation suit

A Stanford University professor who tried to sue a critic and the journal that published an unfavorable view of his work is opposing a judge’s order that he pay $75,000 in legal fees generated in the case.

In 2017, Mark Jacobson, an engineer who studies energy at the California institution, sued Christopher Clack and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) after the journal published an article which cast doubt on some of the conclusions in a 2015 paper Jacobson had written in PNAS. The amount of the defamation claim? $10 million from each of the two parties, plus punitive damages and “any and all relief.”

Jacobson withdrew his lawsuit, which also demanded a retraction, in 2018, at which point Clack and the journal fired back. They filed their own suit grounded in the anti-SLAPP — short for “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation” — statute, in which they asked for Jacobson to pay their legal fees.

Elsevier makes “sand, sun, sea and sex with strangers” paper disappear following criticism

An Elsevier journal has disappeared a paper claiming that gay men seeking sex on the beach is damaging dunes, after critics lambasted the work as terrible science and an “egregious” attack on gays and bisexuals.

The article, “Sand, Sun, Sea and Sex with Strangers, the “five S’s”. Characterizing “cruising” activity and its environmental impacts on a protected coastal dunefield [WebArchive link],” argues that the littoral lovemaking habits of some particularly enthusiastic mariners might be damaging key ecological species:

Co-author of paper claiming COVID-19 vaccines linked to miscarriage says he’s retracting it

A pair of researchers in New Zealand have asked for the retraction of a controversial article on the risk of miscarriage in pregnant women who receive a vaccination against Covid-19, according to one of the co-authors.

Simon Thornley, of the University of Auckland — and an outspoken critic of New Zealand’s efforts to contain the Covid-19 pandemic — and Aleisha Brock, of Whanganui, N.Z., published a reanalysis of a study in which they claimed to have found that as many as 91% of pregnant women miscarry after receiving a Covid jab.

But after an onslaught of criticism — including a scathing email from an official at the University of Auckland — Thornley tells us he and Brock have decided to retract their paper, although he declined to tell us why.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: