Hyung-In Moon, the South Korean plant compound researcher who came up with fake email addresses so that he could do his own peer review, has retracted twenty more papers, all in Immunopharmacology and Immunotoxicology, an Informa Healthcare title. Here are the papers:
Scientists frustrated by the so-called “third reviewer” — the one always asking for additional experiments before recommending acceptance — might be forgiven for having fantasies of being able to review their own papers. But one Korean scientist, Hyung-In Moon, managed to do just that, through what must have seemed like clever subterfuge at the time. … Continue reading South Korean plant compound researcher faked email addresses so he could review his own studies
The International Wound Journal has retracted 242 papers so far this year as part of an ongoing investigation into manipulated peer review. We reported in December the journal, a Wiley title, had retracted 27 papers as part of an investigation. A Wiley spokesperson told us the 2025 retractions are part of the same ongoing investigation, … Continue reading Wiley journal retracts over 200 more papers
Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 500.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 … Continue reading Weekend reads: ‘The Discipline of Last Resort’; universities with the most retractions; ‘patent mills’
The phrase was so strange it would have stood out even to a non-scientist. Yet “vegetative electron microscopy” had already made it past reviewers and editors at several journals when a Russian chemist and scientific sleuth noticed the odd wording in a now-retracted paper in Springer Nature’s Environmental Science and Pollution Research. The ludicrous phrase … Continue reading As a nonsense phrase of shady provenance makes the rounds, Elsevier defends its use
If 2024 felt like a whirlwind, you’re not alone. It was another busy one here at Retraction Watch, too. Some numbers to tell that story: A sampling of a few other key accomplishments this year:
Optical and Quantum Electronics, a Springer Nature journal, has retracted more than 200 papers since the start of September, and continues issuing retraction notices en masse. According to the notices, which have similar wording, the retractions come after the publisher identified problems with the articles including compromised peer review, inappropriate or irrelevant references, and nonsensical … Continue reading Springer Nature journal has retracted over 200 papers since September
A journal that lost its impact factor in June is in the midst of a cleanup operation, issuing nearly 140 retractions so far this year. The mass retractions began over a year after sleuths Alexander Magazinov and Guillaume Cabanac first raised concerns about the presence of suspicious citations, tortured phrases and undisclosed use of AI … Continue reading Sleuths spur cleanup at journal with nearly 140 retractions and counting
We know we say this every year, but the last 12 months have been big ones for Retraction Watch as we celebrate our 14th birthday on August 3. We’ve continued breaking big stories and maintaining The Retraction Watch Database – while also taking big steps toward financial sustainability. In September, we announced that the Database … Continue reading Happy 14th birthday, Retraction Watch – and what a year it was
Clarivate, the company that calculates Journal Impact Factors based on citations to articles, didn’t publish the metric for 17 journals this year due to suspected citation manipulation. That’s a substantial increase from last year, when only four were excluded. The increase is, in part, case of rising tides lifting (sinking?) all boats: In its 2024 … Continue reading Seventeen journals lose impact factors for suspected citation manipulation