Retraction Watch

Weekend reads: Why coronavirus papers need a warning label; scientists correct the record

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.

Sending thoughts to our readers and wishing them the best in this uncertain time.

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

A researcher who felt “shocked” and “physically ill” — but still corrected the record.
A retraction mystery in which none of the authors of a paper knew anything about it.
The retraction of a paper in Nature after years of scrutiny.

Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

A German vocabulary lesson: Paper retracted because an “individuelle Heilversuche” is not a clinical trial

by mcmurryjulie

A co-editor of the Journal of Neurology has retracted a 2018 paper he helped write because the way the paper was written misled readers about the nature of the research.

The article, “Menière’s disease: combined pharmacotherapy with betahistine and the MAO-B inhibitor selegiline—an observational study,” purported to describe the effects of a combination treatment to reduce the incidence of dizziness in people with Menière’s, a neurologic disorder that affects the inner ear.

The first author of the paper is Michael Strupp, of the Munich Center for Neurosciences at Ludwig-Maximilians-University in Munich. Strupp also is one of a troika of editors in-chief of the Journal of Neurology.

According to the abstract:

“I was shocked. I felt physically ill.” And still, she corrected the record.

Two years ago, Julia Strand, an assistant professor of psychology at Carleton College, published a paper in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review about how people strain to listen in crowded spaces (think: when they’re doing the opposite of social distancing).

The article, titled “Talking points: A modulating circle reduces listening effort without improving speech recognition,” was a young scientist’s fantasy — splashy, fascinating findings in a well-known journal — and, according to Strand, it gave her fledgling career a jolt.

The data were “gorgeous,” she said, initially replicable and well-received:

A mystery: “none of the authors listed had any involvement with or knowledge of the article”

Even after close to 10 years of writing about retractions every day, some days we read retraction notices that make us say, “huh?”

Today is one of those days.

Take this retraction notice for “High-resolution ultrasound images in gouty arthritis to evaluate relationship between tophi and bone erosion,” a paper first published in Future Generation Computer Systems last year:

U Maryland group up to three retractions following investigation

A researcher at the University of Maryland, along with two former colleagues, has had three papers retracted in the past six months following an institutional investigation that found evidence of image manipulation.

The three retractions share three authors: Hua Zhou, Ying Hua Yang and John Basile, an associate professor of oncology and diagnostic sciences at the institution. The original papers appeared in Angiogenesis and PLOS ONE between 2011 and 2013.

Basile told Retraction Watch that he was prohibited from discussing the matter, based on statements from the university’s investigation committee, but that he did not think other papers from his lab co-authored with Zhou would be retracted.

One of the articles, “Semaphorin 4D cooperates with VEGF to promote angiogenesis and tumor progression,” has been cited 46 times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science. Here’s the retraction notice from Angiogenesis, which was published earlier this month:

Nature paper on cancer retracted after years of scrutiny

Following five years of criticism, a group of researchers based at Stanford and elsewhere have retracted a 2006 paper in Nature for “image anomalies.”

The notice for “Lysyl oxidase is essential for hypoxia-induced metastasis” reads:

Weekend reads: Coronavirus meets scientific publishing; publish or perish loses in court; retractions in cancer research

Sending thoughts to our readers and wishing them the best in this uncertain time.

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

JAMA sounding the alarm about coronavirus data;
the retraction of a paper claiming a link between statins and lowered glaucoma risk;
a journal frustrated by a university’s inaction.

Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Frustrated by a university’s lack of action, a journal retracts

Expression of concern, meet expression of frustration.

Eight months ago, in the wake of skepticism about the data in a 2017 paper it had published, the Obstetrics & Gynecology issued an EoC about the article. At the time, the journal, an official title of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said it had contacted the authors’ institution — Menoufia University in Shibin Al Kawm, Egypt — about the article.

Those efforts evidently met with silence. Now the journal has retracted the paper, “Sildenafil citrate therapy for oligohydramnios: a randomized controlled trial,” with a swipe at the school’s apparent lack of interest in the misdeeds of its faculty members:

Researcher loses PhD after investigation finds he faked data

Researchers in Singapore have lost a 2011 paper in Gene Therapy after an institutional investigation found that some of their data had been fabricated by a PhD student on the project.

Most of the authors were affiliated with the Institute of Bioengineering and Nanotechnology, a unit of the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR).

The article, “Targeted suicide gene therapy for glioma using human embryonic stem cell-derived neural stem cells genetically modified by baculoviral vectors,” purported to show that:

Journal slaps 13 expressions of concern on papers suspected of being from a paper mill

The journal Artificial Cells, Nanomedicine, and Biotechnology has attached expressions of concern to 13 papers published in 2019 that a group of sleuths have flagged for potentially being from a paper mill.

In February, Elisabeth Bik wrote on her blog:

Based on the resemblance of the Western blot bands to tadpoles (the larval stage of an amphibian, such as a frog or a toad), we will call this the Tadpole Paper Mill.

Bik explains in her post that she and her colleagues — including pseudonymous sleuths @MortenOxe, @SmutClyde, and @TigerBB8 — had been working on a set of 17 papers that Jennifer Byrne and Jana Christopher had also been scrutinizing:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: