Retraction Watch

Authors asked Elsevier to retract papers in 2012. In one case, they’re still waiting.

Elsevier has retracted two papers for image duplication – 13 years after the authors alerted the journal to issues with the work.

The papers are the third and fourth retractions for a group of researchers in Ireland. The team had asked Elsevier journals to retract five papers in April 2012 — one of which is still in process.

The first two papers, published in Cancer Letters, were retracted in 2013.

Then last week, two more articles, published in the European Journal of Pharmacology (EJP), were retracted.

Cardiology researcher in Italy up to 17 retractions, most for duplication

A heart researcher from Italy has lost three papers because the articles duplicated work he had previously published. The retractions bring his tally to 17, all but one of which were for self-plagiarism.

The latest retractions for Renato De Vecchis were from the Journal of Clinical Medicine Research (JCMR). JCMR is published by Elmer Press and is not indexed in Clarivate’s Web of Science. De Vecchis most recently listed his affiliation as San Gennaro dei Poveri Hospital in Naples. He was previously at Elena d’Aosta, a health center in Naples. His published papers are all in cardiology research.

Richard Liu, the director and CEO of Elmer Press, told us JCMR “informed the related journals” of similarities between publications. He also said the journal never heard back from the authors but “since the contents overlapped are significant [sic],” the journal decided to retract the papers.

Weekend reads: Journal says no to RFK Jr.; another Microsoft quantum computing correction; ‘Journal Impact Nonsense’

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

Former lab tech earns federal funding ban years after leaving science
High school student who volunteered at NASA-sponsored lab gets retraction
Genomics pioneer earns first retraction for anti-aging gene therapy paper
Sage journal retracts nearly 50 papers for signs of paper mill activity
‘Tin Man Syndrome’ case plagiarized from hoax, sleuths say

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 500. There are more than 60,000 retractions in The Retraction Watch Database — which is now part of Crossref. The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker now contains more than 300 titles. And have you seen our leaderboard of authors with the most retractions lately — or our list of top 10 most highly cited retracted papers? What about The Retraction Watch Mass Resignations List?

Here’s what was happening elsewhere (some of these items may be paywalled, metered access, or require free registration to read):

‘Tin Man Syndrome’ case plagiarized from hoax, sleuths say

*A comparison of the images and an overlay, provided by a sleuth.*

On April Fools’ Day 10 years ago, radiologist Matt Skalski took part in a website’s annual challenge to prank the radiology community by posting the case of a man with “ectopia cordis interna,” or “Tin Man Syndrome.” Unlike the fictitious metal character from the Wizard of Oz, Skalski’s satirical patient had a heart — in his abdomen.

Now a group of researchers say they encountered the disease in real life, in a 22-year-old patient they claim has “no significant medical history.”

The researchers based in Iraq published their “rare case report” in Medicine in July.

Sage journal retracts nearly 50 papers for signs of paper mill activity

Sage has retracted four dozen papers from one of its journals for suspected paper mill activity.

The publisher started an investigation into the European Journal of Inflammation “after we noticed signs of papermill activity in one of the articles,” Laura West, a corporate communications and public affairs manager at Sage, told Retraction Watch.

The investigation found the papers “contain indicators of third-party involvement,” according to the retraction notice, published August 5. Sage and the editor of the journal decided to retract the articles due to “concerns around author contributions to these articles, as well as concerns around the integrity of the research process.”

Genomics pioneer George Church earns first retraction for anti-aging gene therapy paper

A paper coauthored by geneticist George Church has been retracted following an internal review at a university where several coauthors are based.

The article appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2022. The work supports an anti-aging gene therapy developed by BioViva, a company for which Church serves as an adviser. The paper’s authors claim cytomegalovirus (CMV) can be a gene therapy vector for a treatment for “aging-associated decline” that can be inhaled or injected monthly.

The work has been cited 41 times, two of which are citations from corrections to the article, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.

High school student who volunteered at NASA-sponsored lab gets retraction

An astronomical society journal has issued its first retraction in its 10-year history — for work done by a NASA researcher and a high school student. The duo set out to confirm an astrophysics law using calculations that assumed the law was true.

The journal, Research Notes of the AAS, is published by the American Astronomical Society. It is not peer-reviewed, nor is it indexed in Clarivate’s Web of Science. The retraction has prompted the journal to revise its policies on reviewing work before publication.

One of the two authors on the retracted 2024 article is Jadon Lam, who at the time was a student at Pleasant Grove High School in Elk Grove, California. Lam is now at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena studying astrophysics, according to his LinkedIn profile.

Former lab tech earns federal funding ban years after leaving science

The U.S. Office of Research Integrity has barred a former lab technician at Washington State University from participating in federally funded research for three years after finding he had committed misconduct.

The case dates back more than five years. Ryan Evanoff was a scientific assistant in the Department of Veterinary Microbiology and Pathology at the university’s Pullman campus. As we reported in 2020, colleagues in the department had discovered he had been fabricating gene sequence data. The falsified data led to the retraction of two papers.

A draft of the university’s investigation obtained through a public records request stated Evanoff engaged in “a repeated and measurable pattern of research material manipulation, changing of data, omission of critical research procedures and findings in lab notebooks, and making up data and results” from at least 2015 through 2019, when he left the university.

Weekend reads: Scientific fraud at scale; upheaval inside US human protections office; vaccines-autism paper retracted

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

Springer Nature retracts book with fake citations. Help us find more cases like this
Fighting coordinated publication fraud is like ‘emptying an overflowing bathtub with a spoon,’ study coauthor says. More coverage from the New York Times, Science, Nature and the Economist.
‘Biologically implausible distributions’ and self-plagiarism result in 10 retractions for ob-gyn
Dean accused of plagiarism in Bulgaria not guilty, ministry report says

Here’s what was happening elsewhere (some of these items may be paywalled, metered access, or require free registration to read):

Dean accused of plagiarism in Bulgaria not guilty, ministry report says

A governmental ministry in Bulgaria has concluded a dean at Sofia University is not guilty of plagiarism. But it appears the inquiries might not be complete.

As we reported in December, Milen Zamfirov, dean of the faculty of educational sciences at the university, had been accused of plagiarism in a 2021 paper that “seems to have significant overlap” with two other works. In February, two researchers filed a complaint to the country’s Ministry of Education and Science, alleging Zamfirov plagiarized other works in multiple papers.

The ministry assigned three reviewers to assess the articles in question, all of whom are identified only by initials in its report, released July 9.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: