Retraction Watch

Retraction Watch is hiring! Two journalism jobs available

Update, 12/19/24: These roles have been filled. Thanks to all who expressed interest and applied in a very competitive pool.

Thanks to generous support from the WoodNext Foundation and ongoing support from individual donors, as well as revenue from journalism partnerships and speaking fees, Retraction Watch is hiring for two roles: managing editor and staff reporter. If you’re interested in accountability science journalism with impact that drives the conversation around scientific integrity and is frequently picked up by local, national and international news outlets, these roles are for you.

The managing editor will:

‘All the red flags’: Scientific Reports retracts paper sleuths called out in open letter

Scientific Reports, a Springer Nature title, has retracted an article a group of sleuths described as “a kind of case study of all the red flags for fraud that we look for” in an open letter to the publisher’s head of research integrity.

The article, “Hybrid CNN-LSTM model with efficient hyperparameter tuning for prediction of Parkinson’s disease,” appeared in September 2023. It has been cited 11 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.

In December 2023, a PubPeer user commented on 13 tortured phrases the Problematic Paper Screener had flagged in the article, such as the use of “Parkinson’s illness,” “Parkinson’s infection,” and “Parkinson’s sickness” rather than Parkinson’s disease.

Weekend reads: Top Alzheimer’s researcher on leave; president calls for superconductivity researcher to be fired; continued citation of retracted papers

Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 400. There are more than 50,000 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 — or our list of nearly 100 papers with evidence they were written by ChatGPT?

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

Complaint from engineering software company prompts two retractions

An engineering journal has retracted two papers after a company complained the authors of the articles used its software without a valid license.

Both retracted papers were published by Ain Shams Engineering Journal in the last couple of years by different authors based in Egypt. Both papers used FLOW-3D, software that is used to simulate the dynamics of liquids and gasses, which is developed by the firm Flow Science, Inc., in Santa Fe, N.M.

Tom Jensen, vice president of Flow Science, told Retraction Watch the firm offered the authors of both studies to legalize their version of the software by purchasing a license.

But the company didn’t receive a response, Jensen said, despite informing the researchers a retraction would be sought from the journal without a valid license. “We offer greatly reduced prices for licenses for academic institutions and we have numerous academic users around the world,” he added.

Another Springer Nature journal has retracted over 300 papers since July

Soft Computing, a Springer Nature title, has retracted at least 335 papers this year, many from issues with guest editors.

The mass retractions began in July, with the latest appearing November 4.

The retraction notes contain identical language to notices in Environmental Science and Pollution Research and Optical and Quantum Electronics, which have also been retracting articles en masse this year:

University of Newcastle investigating top melanoma researchers

The University of Newcastle in Australia is investigating the work of two prominent skin cancer researchers, Retraction Watch has learned.

Commenters on PubPeer have posted questions about the data in 42 papers by Peter Hersey and Xu Dong Zhang, both well-known in Australian melanoma research. So far, two of the papers have been retracted and four corrected.

The University of Newcastle’s head of research and innovation confirmed that the university has launched an investigation into both experts, according to emails seen by Retraction Watch. That official has a complex history of her own: a paper of hers was retracted in 2013, leading to the return of a substantial amount of grant funding.

Embattled rocket scientist loses paper following Retraction Watch report

A controversial rocket scientist in India earned his fourth retraction in October after an investigation at a physics journal found a core part of his work was “inaccurate and paradoxical.”

At issue is a highly technical concept developed by V.R. Sanal Kumar, a professor of aerospace engineering at Amity University in New Delhi. Other scientists have denounced the concept, which Kumar has dubbed “Sanal flow choking,” as “absolute nonsense,” as we reported in April.

The editors of AIP Advances appear to agree. An October 9 notice announcing the retraction of “A closed-form analytical model for predicting 3D boundary layer displacement thickness for the validation of viscous flow solvers” stated:

Weekend reads: Science journals and the U.S. presidential election; ‘delve’ and spelling errors in the literature; PruittGate revisited

Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 400. There are more than 50,000 retractions in The Retraction Watch Database — which is now part of Crossref. The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker now contains more than 250 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 — or our list of nearly 100 papers with evidence they were written by ChatGPT?

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

How an article estimating deaths from hydroxychloroquine use came to be retracted

An article estimating how many people might have died during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic due to the off-label use of hydroxychloroquine in hospitals was retracted in August after advocates for the drug launched a campaign criticizing the study.

French media have reported criticism of the retraction as inappropriate, and speculation the journal caved to pressure from hydroxychloroquine advocates.

In a statement to Retraction Watch, the journal stood by its decision to retract the article due to “some clear fatal flaws” identified in letters to the editor, which it said it declined to publish due to their tone it deemed “not suitable for publication in a scientific journal.”

Meet the founder of a 100,000-strong Facebook group driving change in scientific integrity in Vietnam

Retraction Watch readers may have noticed an uptick of items in the RW Daily and Weekend Reads about scientific integrity issues in Vietnam over the past year. Many of those items had their genesis, and were circulated, on a Facebook group that now has close to 100,000 members — and was recently removed temporarily by Facebook. We asked Van Tu Duong, a researcher at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, USA, who founded the group, to tell us more about the history of the effort. This email interview has been lightly edited for flow and clarity.

Tell us about this history of the group. Why did you find it, and when?

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: