Retraction Watch

Nature editors retract influential cancer paper with “unreliable” data

Editors at Nature have retracted a 2015 paper on breast cancer metastases citing trouble with the data in the supplementary materials.

The paper, “The hypoxic cancer secretome induces pre-metastatic bone lesions through lysyl oxidase,” was first published in May 2015 and has been cited 352 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.

This marks the second retraction for corresponding author Janine Erler, a professor in cancer biology at the University of Copenhagen. As previously reported by Retraction Watch, Nature in 2020 pulled a 2006 paper on which she was first author because of “image anomalies” and the absence of original data. Two other papers co-authored by Erler have been corrected and one additional paper has an expression of concern.

Weekend reads: ‘No gender bias in academic science;’ an editor is fired; foreign research fraud in Australia

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Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to more than 300. There are nearly 40,000 retractions in our database — which powers retraction alerts in EndNote, LibKey, Papers, and Zotero. And have you seen our leaderboard of authors with the most retractions lately — or our list of top 10 most highly cited retracted papers?

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

Former cancer research center director plagiarized and faked data, feds say

The former director of a cancer research center faked data and presented others’ published data and text as his own in four grant applications to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and one research record, according to a U.S. government watchdog.

Johnny J. He, a professor of microbiology and immunology at the Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science (RFUMS) in Chicago, Ill., “engaged in research misconduct by intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly falsifying, fabricating, and plagiarizing experimental data and text” published by other scientists, the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) said today.

He did not immediately respond to an email or phone call seeking comment.

US-backed researchers in Colombia accused of experimenting on animals, humans without approval

On January 16, inspectors from an environmental agency in western Colombia made some troubling findings. At a U.S.-funded facility supposed to be doing cutting-edge malaria research, researchers were keeping dozens of monkeys in dirty cages in poorly ventilated, over-lit enclosures. Several animals were smeared with feces. Some looked sick, and one was missing an eye. A fetid smell hung in the air. On the floor of a cage, a baby monkey lay dead.

It wasn’t the first time Fundación Centro de Primates (FUCEP) had run afoul of local authorities. In 2021, inspectors had turned up signs of “animal abuse” at the facility, located a few miles from the city of Cali, and found no veterinarian on site. Perhaps more damning, the researchers in charge did not have the permits required to experiment on or keep lab animals.

But the problems may run even deeper. According to an 18-months investigation by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), a U.S.-based animal-rights group, FUCEP’s parent organization, Caucaseco Scientific Research Consortium, apparently also conducted research in people without valid ethics approvals. These allegations have not previously been described in the media.

‘Frankly abusive’: More questions about the journal that stole an author’s identity

Last week, we brought you the story of a professor who found her name on an article she didn’t write, which also seemed to have been plagiarized.

Since our story was published, we’ve learned a little more about the journal that published the article, the African Journal of Political Science.

Jephias Mapuva, a professor at the Bindura University of Science Education in Zimbabwe, who is listed as the editor in chief of the journal, told us in an email that he is “not associated with the journal in any way.”

“It came to me as a surprise that I am listed as an Editor-In-Chief,” he wrote. He also copied an email address for the journal publisher, International Scholars Journal, and asked for his name to be removed from the website:

Torturing data to predict bitcoin prices: A book excerpt

We are pleased to present an excerpt from Distrust: Big Data, Data-Torturing, and the Assault on Science, a new book by Pomona College economics professor Gary Smith. The Washington Post said the book’s lessons “are very much needed.”

The fact that changes in bitcoin prices are driven by fear, greed, and manipulation has not stopped people from trying to crack their secret. Empirical models of bitcoin prices are a wonderful example of data torturing because bitcoins have no intrinsic value and, so, cannot be explained credibly by economic data.

Undaunted by this reality, a National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) paper reported the mind-boggling efforts made by Yale University economics professor Aleh Tsyvinski and a graduate student, Yukun Liu, to find empirical patterns in bitcoin prices.

A response to a public records request that raised more questions than it answered

Last August, a U.S. federal research misconduct watchdog announced findings that a longtime researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles named Janina Jiang faked data in 11 grant applications.

More than a month later, the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) issued a rare correction to its announcement, saying “additional information” from UCLA indicated that one of the grants “did not fund or contain falsified/fabricated data.” The watchdog agency said it would remove the application in question from its findings of research misconduct.

The grant, UL1 TR000124, helped fund the UCLA Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI) with $57 million from 2012-2015. The listed principal investigator, Steven M. Dubinett, is the interim dean for UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine.

At the time of the correction, we wondered how a report that would have had to be reviewed by multiple officials – and lawyers – at both institutions could include such a mistake, and filed public records requests to find out.

Weekend reads: Harvard group’s work under scrutiny; editorial board resigns en masse; a concussion study hits a brick wall

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 to more than 300. There are more than 39,000 retractions in our database — which powers retraction alerts in EndNote, LibKey, Papers, and Zotero. And have you seen our leaderboard of authors with the most retractions lately — or our list of top 10 most highly cited retracted papers?

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

Guest post: What happened when we tried to get a book with misinformation about our field retracted

For much of the past year, we and several colleagues in our field have been trying to convince a publisher to retract a book.

Advocates are using the text because it contains details on how to advance numerous laws in the United States and throughout the world. The text is also currently being used to influence judicial decisions that affect the lives of thousands of families.

The problem is, the work contains a massive amount of misinformation, misquoted sources, plagiarized text, and many other flaws.

We have been so disappointed with the failure of the publisher and the Committee on Publishing Ethics (COPE) to address our concerns and our request for retraction that we have decided to share our experience with the scientific community.

Debate over whether video games ‘rot kids’ brains’ won’t be settled by this retraction

The global sigh of relief was almost audible when a study last year found kids who played video games for hours every day had no worse mental health than non-gamers. In fact, they came out ahead on some cognitive measures.

“Video Games May Not Rot Kids’ Brains After All,” one of the many news stories about the research trumpeted. Another headline declared: “Video games could improve kids’ brains.“

Now it turns out the study, titled “Association of Video Gaming With Cognitive Performance Among Children,” was so flawed it had to be retracted and republished. The updated results show gamers did actually score significantly worse on things like attention and depression, although some of their performance metrics were still slightly better than among non-gamers.

According to the republished article in JAMA Network Open:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: