Was nonsense ‘vegetative electron microscopy’ phrase a Farsi typo?

Vegetative Scanning electron microscope
Wikimedia Commons

A gibberish phrase that caught the attention of science sleuths after it slipped into several journals might trace its origin to a typo in Farsi rather than questionable use of AI, as we reported earlier this month.

Nearly two dozen scientific papers, including some in journals from major publishers, mysteriously refer to “vegetative electron microscopy” or “vegetative electron microscope.” As we wrote in our previous story, sleuth Alexander Magazinov speculated on PubPeer “the phrase could have originated through faulty digital processing of a two-column article from 1959 in which the word ‘vegetative’ appeared in the left column directly opposite ‘electron microscopy’ in the right.”

Most of the articles containing the strange wording included authors from Iran. Magazinov told us perhaps an AI model had picked up the phrase from the 1959 article and spit it back into machine-generated text that was later plagiarized in other papers by the same Iranian network of fraudsters.

Continue reading Was nonsense ‘vegetative electron microscopy’ phrase a Farsi typo?

ICYMI: Dean under investigation for plagiarism following Retraction Watch story: report 

A university dean is being investigated for plagiarism following our coverage of accusations against him, a Bulgarian newspaper reported last month.

The Academic Ethics Commission in Bulgaria has launched an investigation into Milen Zamfirov, dean of the faculty of educational sciences at Sofia University, Dnevnik reported February 25. 

The accusations concern a 2021 paper he wrote with his colleague Margarita Bakracheva, “In Search of Integrativity of Sciences: the Principle of Supplementarity in the Story of Pauli and Jung.” As we reported in December 2024, the paper “seems to have significant overlap” with other sources.

Continue reading ICYMI: Dean under investigation for plagiarism following Retraction Watch story: report 

Five studies from “Bust Size and Hitchhiking” author retracted 

A journal has retracted five papers about the appearance, sexual behavior and attractiveness of women. 

Nicolas Guéguen, a professor of marketing at the Université de Bretagne-Sud in France, was an author on each of the papers, published in the Sage journal Perceptual and Motor Skills (PMS) at least 15 years ago. All of the articles garnered expressions of concern in 2023, but Guéguen’s history of misconduct long precedes the PMS papers. 

Sleuths have been flagging Guéguen’s work for years for seemingly impossible results. In 2019, he was cleared of wrongdoing by his university, but since then has racked up at least four retractions, according to the Retraction Watch database. 

Continue reading Five studies from “Bust Size and Hitchhiking” author retracted 

Weekend reads:  Same data, opposite conclusions; ‘Death by ax’; ‘plastics in your brain’

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 500. There are more than 57,000 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):

Continue reading Weekend reads:  Same data, opposite conclusions; ‘Death by ax’; ‘plastics in your brain’

Exclusive: U.S. federal research integrity teams take hits with departures 

Amid efforts by the Trump administration to “put an end to fraudulent and wasteful spending” and “enhance” accountability, two key offices charged with investigating fraud and holding scientists and institutions accountable for federal spending have seen top leadership depart.

At the National Science Foundation’s Office of Inspector General (OIG), the changes start at the top: Inspector General Allison Lerner is departing, and Megan Wallace, currently assistant inspector general for investigations at NSF, will become the acting inspector general, effective March 1.

Deputy Inspector General Ken Chason is also departing. The acting deputy will be Catherine DelPrete, who is NSF’s general counsel to NSF’s inspector general, according to her LinkedIn profile.

The changes were confirmed by Nadine Lymn, communications director of the National Science Board, which appoints and supervises NSF’s inspector general. 

Meanwhile, Retraction Watch has learned that most — if not all — research investigators at the National Science Foundation’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) will also be leaving their jobs.  

Continue reading Exclusive: U.S. federal research integrity teams take hits with departures 

Author forges document to claim USDA affiliation 

A journal has retracted three papers after an investigation revealed one of the authors falsely claimed he was affiliated with the United States Department of Agriculture.

All three retraction notices, issued February 13 by the Journal of Environmental Management,  state study coauthor Tariq Shah claimed affiliation with the USDA Plant Science Research Unit. “When asked about these issues during an editorial investigation, Shah’s responses caused the editor to further lose confidence in the validity/integrity of the article,” the notices say.

A spokesperson for Elsevier, which publishes the journal, told us in an email “Shah provided a document claiming to show his official affiliation with USDA that we later learned through our investigation was forged.” Neither Shah nor Elsevier clarified what the document was.

Continue reading Author forges document to claim USDA affiliation 

Exclusive: Extensive correction to Genentech PNAS article will get an update after RW inquiry

Cover of the July 5, 2006 issue of PNAS

An article by Genentech scientists received an extensive correction in January for multiple instances of image duplications after comments on PubPeer spurred the authors to review the work. 

But the correction “inadvertently omitted” an additional duplication, and will be updated after Retraction Watch brought the matter to the journal’s attention, a representative for the publication said. The sleuth who identified the additional duplication said the original article should have been retracted instead of corrected. 

The article, “Death-receptor activation halts clathrin-dependent endocytosis,” appeared in July 2006 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, with a correction issued that September. It has been cited 99 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. 

Continue reading Exclusive: Extensive correction to Genentech PNAS article will get an update after RW inquiry

Guest post: If you’re going to critique science, be scientific about it

Loren K. Mell

Editor’s note: This post responds to a Feb. 13 article in The Atlantic, “The Scientific Literature Can’t Save Us Now,” written by Retraction Watch cofounders Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky.

The contentious issue of what — and more importantly who — to believe, when it comes to medical science, is at a critical moment. Watchdog organizations such as Retraction Watch provide a great service to science and the public, by exposing junk scientists and their products, helping to disinfect the field with their sunlight. I commend Mr. Marcus and Dr. Oransky for their sustained efforts in this meta-discipline. 

However, policing the scientific literature is a tricky business. In particular, one must be careful to apply the same standards one demands of others to one’s own work. Agreeable as many of their points are, Marcus and Oransky’s article discrediting Mawson and Jacob’s study (which Robert F. Kennedy Jr. cited during his confirmation hearings) falls woefully short of meeting even basic scientific editorial standards. This failure imbues their article with the same yellow hue that they decry in others’ journalism.

Continue reading Guest post: If you’re going to critique science, be scientific about it

IQ paper gets expression of concern as misconduct fallout continues

The authors of a paper on how incentives influence IQ have requested an expression of concern after a recent retraction altered the results of their study. 

On January 20, we reported that a paper by embattled researcher and child psychologist Stephen Breuning was retracted decades after an investigation found evidence of scientific misconduct. Breuning’s papers came into question following a 1987 report from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), which found he “knowingly, willfully, and repeatedly” engaged in research misconduct and fabricated results in 10 NIMH funded articles. 

Since then, six of Breuning’s papers have been retracted. The latest retracted article, originally published in 1978, was not part of the investigation but came about “due to concerns about the integrity of the data reported and other issues identified within the NIMH Final Report that clearly established a pattern of ongoing scientific misconduct,” the retraction notice read.

Continue reading IQ paper gets expression of concern as misconduct fallout continues

Weekend reads: ‘The Discipline of Last Resort’; universities with the most retractions; ‘patent mills’

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 500. There are more than 55,000 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):

Continue reading Weekend reads: ‘The Discipline of Last Resort’; universities with the most retractions; ‘patent mills’