Retraction Watch

Drug researchers trip up, lifting meth paper to write one on LSD

Evidently meth is a gateway drug … for publishing misconduct.

Researchers in China have lost a 2019 paper on how LSD can damage eyesight because they’d lifted much of the paper from an article that had appeared the year before in a different journal — about methamphetamine.

The retracted article, “Long-term systemic treatment with lysergic acid diethylamide causes retinal damage in CD1 mice,” appeared in Human & Experimental Toxicology. According to the article:

Authors object as “doubtful” data doom dermatology paper

A dermatology journal has retracted a 2017 article by a pair of researchers in Saudi Arabia after receiving a “serious complaint” about the integrity of the data. But the first author of the paper pushed back, saying the move was unjustified.

The article, “Successful use of combined corticosteroids and rituximab in a patient with refractory cutaneous polyarteritis nodosa,” was written by Ibrahim Al-Homood and Mohammad Aljahlan, rheumatologists at King Fahad Medical City in Riyadh and appeared in the Journal of Dermatology & Dermatologic Surgery. It described (with rather grisly pictures) the case of a 25-year-old man with severe leg ulcers that resolved after the described combination therapy.

But at the notice explains, the paper can’t be trusted:

Kyoto University suspends first author of retracted Kumamoto quake paper

Damage from the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake

The first author of a now-retracted paper in Science about the effects of the deadly 2016 Kumamoto earthquake in Japan has been suspended from his university position for one year.

Aiming Lin, of the Department of Geophysics at Kyoto University, was sanctioned by the institution for misconduct stemming from his misuse of data and plagiarism in the 2016 paper:

Weekend reads: A sleuth whose work has led to hundreds of retractions and corrections; an “unethical, risky and misleading” eye study; genetics’ high retraction rate

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 the story of how “pure, utter nonsense” appeared in a peer-reviewed journal; a cock and bull story; and an expression of concern for a paper about leeches. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Forensics Friday: Would you flag this paper if it were under review?

Ever wanted to hone your skills as a scientific sleuth? Now’s your chance.

Thanks to the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB), which is committed to educating authors on best practices in publishing, figure preparation, and reproducibility, we’re presenting the tenth in a series, Forensics Friday.

Take a look at the image below, and then take our poll. After that, click on the link below to find out the right answer.

Cock and bull story leads to retraction of bovine herpesvirus paper

The ancients had a thing for hybrids (think animals, not cars): half goat-half humans, horses with human torsos, winged horses and lions, you get the picture. But a chicken-cow mix wasn’t on that list … until now.

A group of researchers in Brazil has lost a paper in a veterinary journal for trying to reuse data from a poultry study in their paper on herpesvirus infections in cattle.

The article, “Bovine Herpesvirus 5 promotes mitochondrial dysfunction in cultured bovine monocyte-derived macrophages and not affect virus replication,” appeared in February in the journal Veterinary Microbiology.

According to the retraction notice:

‘Not biologically plausible’: questions about survey data earn fluorosis paper a flag

A recent article that offered a stark warning about the risks to children of fluoride in the nation’s water has been tagged with an expression of concern after the publication of a new paper which undermines the reliability of the original data.

The article, “Dental fluorosis trends in US oral health surveys: 1986 to 2012,” appeared in March in JDR Clinical & Translational Research, a dental journal. The first author on the paper is Christopher Neurath, of the American Environmental Health Studies Project, which advocates against fluoridation of water.

The article, which used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for the years 2011 and 2012, reported “large increases in severity and prevalence” of fluorosis over that period — continuing a trend dating back to the mid-1980s.

According to the researchers:

Gravitational fields, silkworm excrement, and “putor” programs: How did this “pure, utter nonsense” get into in a peer-reviewed journal?

Sometimes, a paper comes along that is so revolutionary, it defies description. So rather than try to do justice to a recent paper in Parasitology Research, we’ll reproduce a few paragraphs here:

Leech paper nets expression of concern

An article claiming to uproot the evolutionary tree of leeches has received an expression of concern after a reader notified the journal about potential problems with the data.

The article, “Phylogenomic analysis of a putative missing link sparks reinterpretation of leech evolution,” appeared online in Genome Biology and Evolution, an Oxford University Press title, on June 19 of this year. According to the authors — an international team that includes researchers at the National Museum of Natural History, the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, Florida State University and University of Gothenburg in Sweden — their results:

Weekend reads: A vaping study gets muddied; the “F-word” in science; prof quits following allegations of cocaine bacchanals

The week at Retraction Watch featured an exclusive about a Russian company that claims to have brokered more than 10,000 authorships; a cancer researcher who lost a libel suit against the New York Times; and a criminologist who wrote a 27-page article about why he wants his own paper retracted. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: