Retraction Watch

Widely touted abstract on ivermectin and COVID-19 retracted

The authors of a controversial meeting abstract linking ivermectin to lower mortality from Covid-19 have retracted the study, saying that the work has been widely “misinterpreted” and might be leading to patient harm.

The abstract, “Treatment with Ivermectin Is Associated with Decreased Mortality in COVID-19 Patients: Analysis of a National Federated Database,” was presented at the 2021 International Meeting on Emerging Diseases and Surveillance.

According to the researchers, from the University of Miami, Covid-19 patients who took ivermectin were about 70% less likely to die of the disease than those who took remdesivir.

Former Weill Cornell cancer researcher up to 20 retractions; investigation’s findings are with Feds

The journal Cancer Prevention Research has retracted nine papers at once from a group of cancer researchers led by Andrew Dannenberg, formerly of Weill Cornell Medicine.

The bundle of retractions brings Dannenberg’s total to 20, according to our database, nearly doubling the 11 he had previously. Kotha Subbaramaiah, also formerly of Weill Cornell Medicine, is a coauthor on all of the newly retracted papers, and two of the notices point the finger at figures that he prepared.

Dannenberg and Subbaramaiah retired from Cornell in the space of three months in late 2020 and early 2021, Retraction Watch has learned, and the university has forwarded a report of their investigation into the matter to the U.S. Office of Research Integrity.

A hare-raising expression of concern after an author hires a third party to get a paper published

An Elsevier journal has issued a rather remarkable expression of concern for a 2021 paper on rabbit husbandry after learning that the lead author misrepresented the authorship of the article – and possibly more.

The paper, “Supplementing rabbit diets with butylated hydroxyanisole affects oxidative stress, growth performance, and meat quality,” appeared in animal and ostensibly came from a group in Egypt and Saudi Arabia led by Tharwat Imbabi.

But as the journal explains, the article wasn’t the first rabbit rodeo for Imbabi, of the department of animal production at Benha University. According to the notice, the researcher had failed repeatedly to publish his manuscript in other journals, so he turned to “third parties” for help.

Those contributors did the bulk of the work – but wanted none of the credit. Meanwhile, Imbabi appears to have found other authors willing to join the list.

We’ll let the expression of concern tell the rest:

Urology researcher under investigation for double-dipping has another paper retracted

A urology researcher who stepped down from his post as department chair after an institutional investigation prompted by Retraction Watch reporting has lost another paper.

The article apparently was not flagged during a misconduct investigation, but a PubPeer commenter noted overlapping images in August 2021.

Hari Koul had been interim chair of the department of biochemistry and molecular biology at LSU Health New Orleans until last December. He stepped down from the post (but remains a professor) amid the university’s investigation of allegations that he secured grants from two federal agencies for the same research project, following reporting by Retraction Watch in October.

An LSU Health New Orleans spokesperson told Retraction Watch the “process has not been completed.”

Cornell food marketing researcher who retired after misconduct finding is publishing again

Brian Wansink, the food marketing researcher who retired from Cornell in 2019 after the university found that he had committed academic misconduct, has published two new papers.

The articles, in Cureus and the International Journal of Community Medicine and Public Health, appear to use data that are at least a decade old. Wansink’s only coauthor on the papers is Audrey Wansink, a high school student and, evidently, his daughter. Brian Wansink did not respond to Retraction Watch’s request for comment.

Wansink’s work came under scrutiny beginning in 2016, after he published a blog post that described research practices that sounded like p-hacking to some readers. Other researchers started reviewing his published papers and found many issues.

Want to know whether that journal is scamming you? Introducing the Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker

Have you heard about hijacked journals?

Hijacked journals mimic legitimate journals by adopting their titles, ISSNs, and other metadata. Usually, hijacked journals mirror legitimate journals without permission from the original journal. In rare instances, publishers will buy rights to a legitimate journal but continue the publication under considerably less stringent publishing protocols and without clearly noting to the reader the change in ownership or publication standards (sometimes known as “cloned” journals).

Scholars can be duped into publishing in hijacked journals – many of which require fees – by offers of fast publication and indexing in databases such as Scopus; being indexed in such databases is viewed by many universities and governments as a mark of legitimacy. Even the WHO’s COVID literature database has been fooled.

We’re hoping to put an end to that sort of thing: Introducing the Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker.

Weekend reads: Female driver stereotypes; ‘stealth research’; AI comes to fake scientific images

Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance.

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

Journal about ‘ambient intelligence’ retracts more than 50 papers at once
The “internet may be a challenging venue”: Biomedical engineering group up to four retractions
Drug researchers in Russia have four papers subjected to expressions of concern
‘Inadvertently published’ paper by pharma employee retracted almost a year later

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 227. There are more than 34,000 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):

‘Inadvertently published’ paper by pharma employee retracted almost a year later

A Takeda employee has lost a 2021 paper that the journal says it “inadvertently published.”

The article, “Seasonal and Secular Periodicities Identified in the Dynamics of US FDA Medical Devices (1976–2020): Portends Intrinsic Industrial Transformation and Independence of Certain Crises,” appeared in Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. It has yet to be cited, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science

The retraction notice from a few days ago says, in full:

Drug researchers in Russia have four papers subjected to expressions of concern

A psychiatry journal has issued expressions of concern for four papers by a group of researchers in Russia after questions surfaced about the integrity of the data.

The first author on all of the papers was Ilya D. Ionov, of the Centre On Theoretical Problems in Physical and Chemical Pharmacology, part of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow. The co-authors are affiliated with Timpharm LTD, a drug company without much in the way of an online presence.

The papers appeared in Psychopharmacology, a Springer Nature title.

Here’s the notice for “Anticataleptic activity of nicotine in rats: involvement of the lateral entorhinal cortex,” which Psychopharmacology published in 2021:

The “internet may be a challenging venue”: Biomedical engineering group up to four retractions

A group of biomedical engineering researchers has lost four papers because they appear to be recycling their images from other papers.

The retractions for the group, from Banaras Hindu University in India, span papers published between 2011 and 2014. The retractions began in 2020, after anonymous PubPeer commenters pointed out the similarities between images. The four papers have been cited a total of 140 times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science.

The latest paper to be retracted, “Alleviation of glutamate-mediated neuronal insult by piroxicam in rodent model of focal cerebral ischemia: a possible mechanism of GABA agonism,” was originally published in Springer Nature’s Journal of Physiology and Biochemistry in 2014. It has been cited 12 times.

According to the retraction notice:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: