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
The week at Retraction Watch featured our annual roundup of the year’s top retractions for The Scientist, a retraction from Science, and claims about a book Aristotle never wrote. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
An investigation has uncovered fake reviews on 21 papers submitted to the Journal of the Renin-Angiotensin Aldosterone System. After taking a second look at accepted papers with an author-nominated reviewer, the journal discovered that the listed reviewers on the 21 papers, though real people, had never submitted a report. Eight of the papers have been retracted by … Continue reading Eight retractions for fake reviews lead journal to suspend author nominations
The authors of a paper about the benefits of an antioxidant found in blueberries known as pterostilbene have retracted it after their subsequent research suggested the antioxidant might actually be harmful. The paper presented evidence that the antioxidant might help rats after heart attack, in part by inhibiting cell death (apoptosis). But according to the retraction note, more … Continue reading Authors retract antioxidant paper after more work reverses their conclusion
A study characterizing subtypes of the bacteria that cause bacterial meningitis is being retracted after the authors didn’t have permission to publish the data, even though the data itself remain available in a public database. The paper, in PLOS ONE, relied on a laboratory collection of patient samples. In October, the authors retracted it because … Continue reading Authors retract meningitis paper over permission — but data are in a public database
The week at Retraction Watch featured more installments in the seemingly never-ending story of fake peer reviews. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
Guess what? We’ve got more cases of fraudulent peer review to report — our second post of the day on the subject, in fact. In the latest news, Hindawi Publishing Corporation has retracted 10 papers for “fraudulent review reports,” after an investigation of more than 30 papers that had been flagged this summer. The investigation found … Continue reading In more faked peer review news…10 papers pulled by Hindawi
An investigation at the University of New South Wales in Australia has determined that a long-accused cancer researcher did not commit misconduct. The investigation did find instances when Levon Khachigian breached the code of conduct, but
Robert Weinberg, a prominent cancer researcher at the Whitehead Institute, issued a correction to a paper in Oncogene in May, fixing two errors missed during proofing. We found this one a little late, obviously. It also appears to be a relatively minor correction, not one that appears worthy of retraction. We’ve gotten feedback from readers … Continue reading Cancer research pioneer Robert Weinberg corrected Oncogene paper