This week at Retraction Watch featured a literally bullshit excuse for fake data, a new record for time from publication to retraction, and news of an upcoming retraction from Science. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
The National Science Foundation will no longer fund a pair of chemists who “recklessly falsified data,” according to a report from the NSF’s Office of Inspector General, unless they “take specific actions to address issues” in a 2004 Science paper. That paper is going to be retracted as soon as possible, Science told us. The co-authors that … Continue reading Science retracting paper by chemists cut off from NSF funding
The corresponding author of a paper on testicular cancer is telling readers to discount a figure after she learned it may have been manipulated. Although that one figure in the 2005 paper in the British Journal of Cancer may be problematic, the authors found data to support the other figures, and its conclusions. This isn’t the first … Continue reading Suspicions of data manipulation lead to correction of testicular cancer paper
The Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences has retracted a paper after concerns surfaced from a researcher who claims to have supervised the research but was not listed as a co-author. The first author completed the research — which explored the use of epigenetic alterations as potential early signs of cancer — as part of her … Continue reading Cancer study pulled when published without supervisor’s consent
A researcher who was fired from Leiden University Medical Center in 2013 for fraud has notched a third retraction, following an investigation by her former workplace. When Leiden fired Annemie Schuerwegh, they announced two retractions of papers that contained manipulated data. This third retraction — the last, according to a spokesperson for the center — is for “a discrepancy between … Continue reading Third retraction appears for Leiden researcher fired in 2013
Olivier Voinnet, a high-profile plant scientist at ETH Zurich, has earned a mega-correction. It wrapped up a rough year for the biologist, which included his seventh retraction, and a CNRS investigation that found evidence of misconduct. This latest correction, to a paper on the mechanisms behind RNA silencing in Arabidopsis, was published in RNA. The 2007 paper has been cited … Continue reading Voinnet’s notice count grows, as he notches his 18th correction
Here’s our first post of 2016. The week at Retraction Watch featured a retraction from JAMA, and our list of most-cited retracted papers. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Piero Anversa, a stem cell researcher who we recently learned is leaving Harvard and Brigham & Women’s Hospital after suing them, has added a disclosure statement to six publications. The four papers and two letters were published in Circulation, and all bear identical corrections: Piero Anversa, MD, discloses that he is a member of Analogous, LLC. The author … Continue reading Stem cell researcher that sued Harvard failed to disclose conflicts on 6 publications
A journal is pulling a paper that reported a grain sample in Texas tested positive for mad cow disease after the authors asked to change the results to say the sample contained “animal protein prohibited for use in ruminant feed.” Shortly after the paper was published in October, the authors contacted the Journal of Food … Continue reading Paper pulled when authors backtrack on identifying mad cow disease in Texas
Ever curious which retracted papers have been most cited by other scientists? Below, we present the list of the 10 most highly cited retractions as of May 23, 2025. Readers will see some familiar entries, such as the infamous Lancet paper by Andrew Wakefield that originally suggested a link between autism and childhood vaccines. You’ll … Continue reading Top 10 most highly cited retracted papers