Hello colleagues! I published an article (a systematic review) and later found out that a very similar article was published by another journal. After reading it and investigating, I realized that many ideas were similar and often verbatim, many of the references were in the same order as mine (no alphabetical or chronological order), and there were many other details that suggested plagiarism. Additionally, there were many references mistakes (it was very messy, info from text was often not in the references, they used info from blogs, etc.). I contacted the journal and explained all the details. The authors were not able to explain how they got to the results, why their results were in the same order, and did not answer some questions asked by the editors. They did not have any methodology to their paper. Also, I was able to prove that they used my results because of some technicalities (measurement units) that the original papers did not have. So, it was pretty obvious that they copied the info from my paper and probably didn't even read the original papers.
Their journal is now issuing a retraction or "corrections" as they call it. They are adding a phrase in the middle of the article saying: "In a previous article by Dr. Fuzimoto, 19 papers were retrieved that investigated the subject... etc...". However, I feel that they are only adding one more citation to their paper, and not really making it clear that the authors used my results to compose part of their paper. As I know there are many editors here, I ask you guys: What is the proper and fair way to do this retraction? Shouldn't the editors be more explicit and say that the authors used my results to compose part of their paper? What do you think should be written in this case? I would appreciate the help... I have no experience with this and I need to talk to the editors. Thank you!
Plagiarism should be clearly named as such.
See also this discussion: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_should_i_do_if_find_my_paper_plagiarized
Wolfgang R. Dick provided a link you should check. I think that there is some actions from the plagiarizer it is good. Another option is to shame them. I used and it seem to work to some extend. You can see my
notice of plagiarizing here https://zenodo.org/record/6800537#.Y8aVeLTMI-3 where I discuss Dr. Sandip Ghosal my favorite plagiarizer from Northwestern university and others like Brian J. Cantwell from Stanford university.
Hello Dr Andréa Fuzimoto
I think that journal should state why the retraction happened - what was the shameful reason. It should acknowledge the dishonesty/deceit that occurred. I expect it might be less than ideal as journals often try to not show their own weaknesses and mistakes.
For you, you should be entitled to an explanation and apology as the true author.
Dear Andréa Fuzimoto , this is an example of good explanation of retraction. You do have many of them at Retraction Watch web site. Also, the difference between rejection and retraction should be observed.
"A highly cited economics paper that suggested people raised during recessions were more likely to vote for left-leaning political parties has been retracted, apparently due to a coding error that rendered the results invalid..."
https://retractionwatch.com/2023/01/18/influential-paper-linking-recessions-and-left-wing-voting-patterns-retracted/
Ob-gyn who called criticism ‘racist’ and ‘hate speech’ earns retraction, several expressions of concern
Since publication, significant concerns have been raised about the integrity of the data and reported results in the article. While the authors have fully cooperated with the investigation and provided information in response to our queries, they have not been able to adequately address the concerns raised. As we cannot verify the validity of the published work, we are therefore retracting the article. The authors listed in this publication have been informed, and they do not agree with the retraction...
https://retractionwatch.com/2023/01/18/ob-gyn-who-called-criticism-racist-and-hate-speech-earns-retraction-several-expressions-of-concern/
How do journals deal with problematic articles. Editorial response of journals to articles commented in PubPeer
The aim of this article is to explore the editorial response of journals to research articles that may contain methodological errors or misconduct...
The results show that only 21.5% of the articles that deserve an editorial notice (i.e., honest errors, methodological flaws, publishing fraud, manipulation) were corrected by the journal. This percentage would climb to 34% for 2019 publications. This response is different between journals, but cross-sectional across all disciplines. Another interesting result is that high-impact journals suffer more from image manipulations, while plagiarism is more frequent in low-impact journals. The study concludes with the observation that the journals have to improve their response to problematic articles...
https://revista.profesionaldelainformacion.com/index.php/EPI/article/view/87096
Journal declines to retract fish research paper despite fraud finding: Researcher’s university had found fabrication...
https://www.science.org/content/article/journal-declines-retract-fish-research-paper-despite-fraud-finding
The American Political Science Review issues an expression of concern...
"The Editors of the American Political Science Review would like to alert readers that the article “The Tragedy of the Nomenklatura: Career Incentives and Political Radicalism during China’s Great Leap Famine” may contain errors, including inaccurate reporting of model specifications for some estimates in Tables 4 and 5 and incorrect compilation or calculation of indicators, that make the core findings unreliable. At the time of publication, APSR editorial policies did not require data sharing in a public repository, and according to the authors, the original data are unavailable."
https://karlstack.substack.com/p/american-political-science-review
https://twitter.com/realChrisBrunet/status/1625970694306627605?s=20
Late response!!!
The Lancet’s expression of concern – too little, too late
After five years of refusing to retract the two falsified publications by Macchiarini and colleagues, the Lancet has published an expression of concern about both papers...
It is clear that individuals and organisations that should be concerned about the integrity of medical research and publishing, and should place patient safety first will turn a blind eye to misconduct, which results in death and injury to young patients including children...
https://drpeterwilmshurst.wordpress.com/2023/03/01/the-lancets-expression-of-concern-too-little-too-late/
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(23)00293-3/fulltext
Retraction of: Nature
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13811 Published online 1 October 2014
The Editors have retracted this article. Concerns were raised regarding potential anomalies in the census and experimental data on the aggressiveness and docility of the spiders and the experimental data on prey availability. Post-publication review concluded that the data are not reliable. The Editors therefore no longer have confidence in the results and conclusions of this article. Jonathan N. Pruitt disagrees with this retraction. Charles J. Goodnight is deceased...
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05882-3
What a case!!!
A journal editor once told us authors were free to publish ‘bullshit and fiction.’ Apparently his publisher disagrees...
A journal editor who disdains anonymous concerns about research integrity has just seen an article in his journal retracted, thanks to the work of a pseudonymous sleuth...
https://retractionwatch.com/2023/03/20/a-journal-editor-once-told-us-authors-were-free-to-publish-bullshit-and-fiction-apparently-his-publisher-disagrees/
“It can involve an unreasonable amount of time, an unreasonable amount of work, and an unreasonably uphill struggle to obtain retractions of philosophy publications, no matter how blatant the plagiarism discovered and how indisputable the documentation.”
In the following guest post, Pernille Harsting and Michael V. Dougherty (Ohio Dominican University) recount their efforts to get a plagiarizing philosophy article retracted, discuss the challenges to getting such articles retracted, and comment on the responsibilities journal editors and publishers have in regard to retractions for plagiarism...
https://dailynous.com/2023/03/22/too-hard-plagiarizing-philosophy-publications-retracted-guest-post/
A nanotechnology journal has retracted two papers coauthored by a scientist in France who is accused of manipulating or reusing graphs and figures in nearly two dozen instances, Retraction Watch has learned...
The retraction notices appeared online March 30. They state that an investigation by the journal’s publisher, IOP Publishing, found that a figure in each report was “duplicated from another source without disclosure.”
https://retractionwatch.com/2023/03/31/journal-pulls-papers-by-embattled-scientist-at-national-research-center-in-france/
The paper, “Machine learning of neural representations of suicide and emotion concepts identifies suicidal youth,” has been cited 134 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. Altmetric, which tracks the online attention publications receive, places the article in the top 5% of all the articles and other content it has tracked...
The retraction notice, published today, stated:
The authors are retracting this article after concerns were raised about the validity of their machine learning method in a Matters Arising. While revising their response to these concerns, the authors confirmed that their method was indeed flawed, which affects the conclusions of the article...
https://retractionwatch.com/2023/04/06/high-profile-paper-that-used-ai-to-identify-suicide-risk-from-brain-scans-retracted-for-flawed-methods/
As the COVID-19 pandemic comes to an end in China, medical personnel who have worked tirelessly to fight the omicron (B.1.1.529) variant are now facing a new challenge. Despite their heroic efforts, many of them are now struggling to receive the financial compensation they deserve.
The second sentence cites a blog post on Weixin.
On March 27, 2023, we were informed by the authors of this Correspondence that it contains inaccurate statements and personal opinions from social media, and they wish to withdraw the piece. In light of this information, we have agreed to retract this Correspondence...
https://retractionwatch.com/2023/04/12/author-denies-chinese-censorship-prompted-covid-19-retraction/
Article Retraction—Chinese medical personnel after the COVID-19 pandemic
A Nobelist's 6th retraction!
The undersigned authors note, “We are retracting this article due to issues regarding the bottom panel of Figure 2D. Visible in this blot are the GST-HIF-1β band of interest at the top, a faint doublet in the middle, and a strong band migrating just above GST at the bottom, which is likely a degradation product of GST-HIF-1β. It appears that in the middle doublet, lanes 2, 5, and 8 are duplicate images; lanes 3, 6, and 9 are duplicate images; and lanes 4 and 7 are duplicate images. There is also concern of possible manipulation of the data shown across the bottom band. We believe that the overall conclusions of the paper remain valid, but we are retracting the work due to these underlying concerns about the figure. We apologize for the inconvenience.”
David Z. Qian, Sergio Rey, Jun O. Liu, and Gregg L. Semenza
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2305537120
https://retractionwatch.com/2022/09/03/nobel-prize-winner-gregg-semenza-retracts-four-papers/
A seventh retraction for Nobel Prize winner Gregg Semenza
Retraction to: Oncogene https://doi.org/10.1038/onc.2011.365, published online 22 August 2011
The authors have retracted this article as multiple image irregularities have been noted within this article...
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41388-023-02720-8
The study, “Berberine ameliorates renal injury in diabetic C57BL/6 mice: Involvement of suppression of SphK–S1P signaling pathway,” appeared in the journal Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics in July 2010. It has been cited 76 times.
The study examines how berberine, a compound found in plants such as tree turmeric, might improve kidney injury in diabetic mice. People sometimes take berberine supplements to help treat diabetes, but the evidence for its effectiveness is mixed. The authors of the paper are researchers at Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou, China.
The study was retracted on May 23 at the request of the journal’s editor-in-chief, according to the retraction notice. It states, in part:
This article shows significant data duplication and overlap with Liu, Weihua et al., Effects of berberine on matrix accumulation and NF-kappa B signal pathway in alloxan-induced diabetic mice with renal injury. European Journal of Pharmacology. 2010 Jul 25; 638(1–3):150-5 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejphar.2010.04.033) without adequate referencing. Although there is a slight difference in the methodology section regarding alloxan-induced diabetes models in the two articles, there is a clear overlap between Table 2 of Lan, Tian et al. (2010); and Tables 1 and 2 of Liu, Weihua et al. (2010). The two manuscripts were submitted from the same laboratory in the same year...
https://retractionwatch.com/2023/06/05/flagrant-and-frankly-inexcusable-data-duplication-leads-to-retraction/
Retraction to: Neuropsychopharmacology (2008) 33: 1259–1265; https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.npp.1301500, published online 11 July 2007
The Editors have retracted this article. Concerns have been raised with respect to the integrity of the data reported in Table 2. The author has not responded to a request to provide the original data files. The Editors, therefore, no longer have confidence in the conclusions presented. The author has not responded to correspondence from the Publisher about this retraction...
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-023-01550-2
Retraction Note: Archives of Sexual Behavior (2023) 52:1031–1043 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-023-02576-9
The Publisher and the Editor-in-Chief have retracted this article due to noncompliance with our editorial policies around consent. The participants of the survey have not provided written informed consent to participate in scholarly research or to have their responses published in a peer reviewed article. Additionally, they have not provided consent to publish to have their data included in this article. Table 1 and the Supplementary material have therefore been removed to protect the participants’ privacy.
The authors disagree with this retraction...
Article Retraction Note: Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Report...
Last September, a researcher at a university in Bangladesh emailed a journal about a paper he had published in 2019. He made a stark admission: the paper contained plagiarism, said Sorif Hossain, a lecturer in statistics at Noakhali Science and Technology University, who called for the article to be promptly retracted.
But the paper remained in place. Only after Retraction Watch contacted the European Journal of Environment and Public Health (EJEPH) last week did it issue a retraction.
The retraction notice states that the article, “Salinity and Miscarriage: Is There a Link? Impact of Climate Change in Coastal Areas of Bangladesh – A Systematic Review,” was “retracted due to plagiarism, analysis errors, and writing issues.” The paper has been cited six times, according to Google Scholar (the journal is not indexed in Clarivate’s Web of Science)...
https://retractionwatch.com/2023/06/20/paper-retracted-more-than-eight-months-after-author-admitted-to-plagiarism/
A gastroenterology researcher has sued a scientific journal to stop it from publishing an expression of concern for one of her papers...
https://retractionwatch.com/2023/07/05/scientist-sues-publisher-to-block-expression-of-concern/
Dear Andréa Fuzimoto , this is fine example.
A Systematic Review of Autopsy Findings in Deaths after COVID-19 Vaccination
This preprint has been removed by Preprints with The Lancet because the study's conclusions are not supported by the study methodology. Preprints with The Lancet reserves the right to remove a paper that has been posted if we determine that it has violated our screening criteria. Preprints available here are not Lancet publications or necessarily under review with a Lancet journal. These preprints are early stage research papers that have not been peer-reviewed. Further information is available here: https://www.thelancet.com/preprint-faq
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4496137
Dear David Johnson , let me ask you a question. Why do you repeat the very same contribution under different research questions. You have posted 5 times this answer already today!!!
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David-Johnson-237/answers
Ljubomir Jacić
Although 80 days have passed, the investigation by the journal has not been done yet. I worry if the misconduct would not be revealed.
Rob Keller has given his opinion about the profile of David Johnson . I do agree, I think that it is fake profile!
Ljubomir Jacić
Well, it is up to you whether my profile is fake or not. Unfortunately I do not have publications. As well as I do not want to reveal my info.
Well, we are facing with a legal battle and waiting for the official announcement of the authority. It is my bad that I was careless that I asked some questions in this community. You are spreading something unwanted.
Your profile is open to public now, while you are keeping spreading something in this open community. I would like to politely inform that it is possible to sue you in the case that unforeseen events occur due to your activities.
David Johnson , or who ever you are, I have nothing to hide. My profile is very open to public, this is good research practice.
You have to hide, of course, and "deleted profile" (read Dongwon Kim) also does. You do not deserve any more attention, especially because of this sentence: " I would like to politely inform that it is possible to sue you in the case that unforeseen events occur due to your activities."
I can't stand threats, especially when they are veiled and cowardly!
Ljubomir Jacić
Ljubomir Jacić
Have you been respected by others before? I cannot find enough info on web. How can we imagine that a senior person does this kind of beguiling behaviors? Surprising that you are hitting the back of others.
Scared. Although he politely asked you to remove the info that can bring about a conflict, you rejected it as if the situation was for fun. You made him have no choice but to delete his account. But you are hitting the back of others? Wow surprising! You have nothing to hide, because you have nothing. Scary. this senior-looking person. We should be careful about this guy.
- David Johnson Why are you living in hiding? You didn't even have the courage to add your own picture to your profile, then you threaten others? zero publications, zero citations, zero research Interest Score, and then mock researchers? Are you PhD student? I don't think so, your approach to science and talk with researchers and specifically the senior ones here in RG discussions shows you need basic and elementary education!
- Why did not you answer my questions in your "so called" discussion you started to defame others? show your boldness, come out of your hideout, talk scientifically or if you don't know science, (as I strongly believe) talk logically!
Rahim Alijani
Sorry I don't have publication yet, because I just advanced to the program. Even if I upload a picture, that could be a fake one in people's belief. I don't have a ny reason to hide myself. I am just a freshman working for students in difficulties in a UNION. It is my bad that I behaved careless on RG because I was frustrated with cases happening in academia.
David Johnson
I don't know how serious you are, but if you want to be of help to others in sciences and academia, you need to follow the told and untold rules of science, so you need to be patient and learn.
As you said you are a freshman, then you have a lot of time ahead to be useful and help those that need help in regard to science and scientific publications. You remembered talk about "sue"? they have laws and rules and according to them a court decides. In science the case is comparable. Simply we have rules and even laws and work according to them, avoiding them, disregarding them, disrespecting them mean you lose and even future people that you could have been able to help them if you stayed patient and moved forward according to scientific norms.
if you go to https://retractionwatch.com
you will see that by now 41000 articles have been retracted. Think that you or others want to do your approach (in here and even if you had scientific proof) to those 41000 retracted papers, possible? healthy? ethical? logical? scientific?
In RG we have different discussions about big and universal issues of the world of academia such as this one, find them participate and be responsible in any aspects. You win
Rahim Alijani
Thank you for the advice. Would you please discuss Ljubomir Jacić's behaviors in turn? In his profile, he looks like a senior scholar as it said. I don't know whether his profile is true or not, based on Google search. Regardless the sure thing is that we should stop behaviors if somebody feels uncomfortable and asked to stop several times. But Ljubomir Jacić intentionally behaved in the opposite way. It is obvious that this kind of behaviors would lead to legal action. Could you please explain the philosophy of his behaviors in a scientific way as you emphasized "scientific" terms in discussion here? Again I'd emphasize we should stop behaviors if somebody feels uncomfortable and asked to stop.
In Discussions on RG, definitely we can discuss what can be regarded as a misconduct, why it should be and how we deal with misconduct, without knowing the work or the person of issue. I hope you can agree on it. But Ljubomir Jacić just tried to dig the work or the person of issue out without discussing those topics and stigmatize it permanently on RG as he knows that it is impossible to delete comments once we write. Could you tell me your opinion? It is my bad that I careless posted a posting with details. And I know that Ljubomir Jacić said like "You should have expected what would happen". I am still embarrassed at his reactions.
David Johnson
You're welcome. Definitely, I will explain and open everything by scientific norms, but tomorrow as now 1.30 AM in my city.
Instead, please follow the link below to another discussion, it was active in past March. You will see some similarities with your case. Not only about misconducts in sciences but also about our attitudes, behaviors, values and other psychological and sociological aspects.
Read those some seven answers to that discussion, and also concentrate on my answer. Specifically concentrate on this term "week" in my answer and the words around it. Then find this "last months of 2021", and concentrate on sentences around it. May be it brings a smile to you.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Chinese_researchers_plagiarized_my_paper_What_should_I_do
Regardless of whether it is intentional or unintentional, a scientific misconduct and following retaliation should be prohibited. However, before the official investigation and decision are made, we should refrain from spreading the matter informally. Though it is an extreme case, in some countries, it is banned to reveal the information of a murder to public before trials.
Ljubomir Jacić (I don't think that the writer with this name is truly a senior person). Though he was many times asked to refrain, he intentionally spread all information, hitting the back of others. He may want to teach us how scary the community of RG is. Spreading info is not against hiding misconduct. This is not an issue of concealment. He should take the legal responsibility just in case. I hope you agree with me.
A new paper suggests that COPE guidelines "make it mandatory to disclose in retraction notices institutional investigations.
What do Retraction Notices Reveal About Institutional Investigations into Allegations Underlying Retractions?
Academic journal publications may be retracted following institutional investigations that confirm allegations of research misconduct. Retraction notices can provide insight into the role institutional investigations play in the decision to retract a publication...
Article What do Retraction Notices Reveal About Institutional Invest...
Sage retracts 37 articles from an engineering journal after finding “indicators of third party involvement” in peer review...
A single retraction notice lists the links of the 37 papers to be retracted from Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part E: Journal of Process Mechanical Engineering. The notice states:
After an internal investigation Sage became aware that the peer-review process for these articles had been compromised and contains indicators of third-party involvement. As these were accepted because of a peer-review process that did not meet Sage’s expectations of high quality and ethical peer-review, the publisher cannot uphold the integrity of the research. In line with COPE guidelines and Sage policies, these articles are retracted. The authors have been informed of this decision using the email addresses provided at submission...
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09544089231188713
https://retractionwatch.com/2023/07/21/sage-retracting-three-dozen-articles-for-compromised-peer-review/
David Johnson In my last reply to you, in 19 Jul. I shared a link and emphasized on a word, it was "week" I don't know if you followed the link or not. But the big message for you and your type was to be patient and let and let and let your anger or better to say your furiousness over Prof Ljubomir Jacic goes away, but you did not accept or got it!
I did not scape your questions to me, but I "intentionally" waited silent one whole week to tell you what you have gained or lost in a pure science community as RG is.
You see no one participated, took part or even cared about your attitude here and then you calmed down. If you had waited one "week", things were different for you.
But why I answer you? simply be a Lesson for others to know how to be in a science community.
But first solve this paradox
once you wrote
"Your profile is open to public now, while you are keeping spreading something in this open community. I would like to politely inform that it is possible to sue you in the case that unforeseen events occur due to your activities."
and then
"I don't know whether his profile is true or not, based on Google search"
which one the above mentioned statements by you should I base my answers on, over the prof' profile?
simply a real profile or not?
"Editor’s Note: The editors of Nature have been alerted to concerns regarding the manner in which the data in this paper have been processed and interpreted. Nature is working with the authors to investigate these concerns and establish what (if any) impact they will have on the paper’s results and conclusions. In the meantime, readers are advised to use caution when using results reported therein..."
Dias and his team were initially praised for their claims of a breakthrough in physics: the discovery of the first room-temperature superconductor in the form of carbonaceous sulfur hydride (CSH).
The results of their research were published in the 14 October 2020 issue of Nature, to global acclaim.
However, the results were controversial — not only due to the stunning claims, but also a lack of clarity regarding the paper’s methodologies.
The American Physical Society (APS) dove into the detailed allegations of misconduct against Dias and his team for their 2020 paper. The allegations, which included accusations of plagiarism, data manipulation, and poorly constructed data, resulted in the CSH paper’s retraction the following year...
https://www.campustimes.org/2023/07/22/university-professor-sees-second-paper-retracted-under-accusations-of-data-fabrication/
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-03066-z
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2801-z
A group of authors earns a retraction purely because of a publisher's incompetence...
Due to the inappropriate operations of editors on the journal production system and untimely monitoring of publisher, this article was composed into 2 different issues (Issue 1 and Issue 3 in Volume 10) with the same DOI number. Therefore, the editors wish to retract that one in Issue 3. The publication in Issue 1 Volume 10 will not be changed and the same DOI number will be kept in use.
The editors of the journal declare that this retraction has nothing to do with the authors’ behavior and does not involve any academic or ethical issues...
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.2478/jtim-2022-0090/html
The April 20, 2016, article by Smyth et al entitled “Combination Anti-CTLA-4 and Anti-RANKL in Metastatic Melanoma” (J Clin Oncol 10.1200/JCO.2013.51.3572) was retracted for the following reasons:
An external investigation committee found that although the raw data used to produce Figure 2 was accessible in handwritten and electronic formats, there was a lack of correlation between the mouse numbers in the handwritten notes and the animal use database. Due to the lack of supporting information in the animal database records, the investigation committee concluded that on the balance of probabilities, it is unlikely that the experiments shown in Figure 2 were actually performed.
Per the recommendation of the author's institution, in agreement with the corresponding author, this article has been retracted as of August 11, 2023...
https://ascopubs.org/doi/full/10.1200/JCO.23.01358?role=tab
https://www.smh.com.au/national/peter-maccallum-cancer-centre-embroiled-in-sham-research-scandal-20230818-p5dxmr.html
Unusual practice!!!
Philadelphia Inquirer Deletes Article Critical of Controversial Sixers Arena
The newspaper didn't issue a retraction notice, raising some red flags...
https://www.phillymag.com/news/2023/09/11/philadelphia-inquirer-deletes-article-critical-of-controversial-sixers-arena/
A new editor’s note in Nature highlights concerns about a paper by Google researchers who claimed computer chips designed in just a few hours using artificial intelligence beat chip plans that human experts took months to develop...
Google’s paper, “A graph placement methodology for fast chip design,” has been embroiled in controversy since it was published in 2021. It has been cited well over 100 times, but critics argue the article didn’t include enough detail to allow others to vet the findings and say Nature‘s decision to publish it was a mistake...
According to the retraction notice, the article’s author, Andrew B. Kahng of the University of California, San Diego, who was also a reviewer of the internet company’s research, had changed his assessment of the work following publication...
https://retractionwatch.com/2023/09/26/nature-flags-doubts-over-google-ai-study-pulls-commentary/
Dear Andréa Fuzimoto , this will be interesting for you.
CREC (Communication of Retractions, Removals, and Expressions of Concern) Working Group
Retracted research is published work that is withdrawn, removed, or otherwise invalidated from the scientific and scholarly record. This may occur for many different reasons, which can include error, misconduct, or fraud. Although retraction is relatively rare, it has an outsized impact. Retracted research that is integrated into the scientific publication network via citations--either before or after retraction--enables the inadvertent propagation of potentially unsupported or fabricated data, fundamental errors, and unreproducible results. Once a decision is made to retract, to withdraw, or to publish an expression of concern by an appropriately authorized organization, how do the scholarly communications ecosystem and other information consumers become aware of and share information about the status of the original object?
This working group is creating a NISO Recommended Practice that describes the involved parties, along with their responsibilities, actions, notifications, and the metadata necessary to communicate retracted research across stakeholders' systems...
https://niso.org/standards-committees/crec
Retraction: Laudable Self-correction or a Stigma? Negotiating the Minefield
Journal editors are not very popular. Among the many issues contributing towards their unpopularity is the thorny issue of retractions. Retraction is an indicator of research misconduct, blatant or implied. Sometimes it may result from an act of omission, for instance, when a researcher fails to declare a serious conflict of interest or is lax in the quality control of a study. Research misconduct cannot be classified in black and white but has many shades of grey. Publication pressures in academia and the resulting rat race have spawned many questionable research and publication practices posing a challenge when taking a call...
To clear these minefields, the macro-environment of publishing scientific literature that has become heavily polluted needs to be cleaned. Support for retractions should be an essential part of the ethical publication policy. Researchers reporting scientific fraud should be rewarded instead of being ridiculed, harassed, or litigated. Publishers can have a corpus to pay them, like bug bounty programs offering monetary rewards to ethical hackers. Academic institutions can give incentives to those attempting to correct the literature. All retractions should not be setbacks; those self-correcting, honest errors should be appreciated...
https://journals.lww.com/mjdy/fulltext/2023/16050/retraction__laudable_self_correction_or_a_stigma_.1.aspx
Didier Raoult, the French infectious disease scientist who came to prominence for promoting hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment, has lost two papers for ethics concerns after other scientists flagged issues with hundreds of publications from the institute he formerly led...
"After publication of this paper concerns about ethical oversight of this study were brought to the attention of the Editors. The Authors were not able to provide documentation of appropriate approval from an ethics committee in either Niger or Senegal, where the participants in this study were based."
https://retractionwatch.com/2023/10/31/controversial-french-researcher-loses-two-papers-for-ethics-approval-issues/
The founder and CEO of an accreditation firm for autism therapy providers has stepped down after an article she published in an education journal was retracted.
Sara Litvak’s resignation from the Behavioral Health Center of Excellence (BHCOE) comes about a month after Spectrum and Retraction Watch reported that Litvak’s retracted article cited nonexistent sources...
The article was retracted via an undated notice that did not mention any specific issues. But a correction notice to the issue’s introduction, published 4 October, says that the editors retracted Litvak’s article “due to the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) that led to numerous inaccuracies within the reference and the body of the paper.” Close examination of a PDF copy of the article obtained by The Transmitter and Retraction Watch revealed that nearly two-thirds of the article’s references appear to not exist...
https://www.thetransmitter.org/spectrum/head-of-company-that-accredits-autism-service-providers-resigns-after-article-retraction/
"A psychologist in Australia has earned a pair of retractions after publishing several papers with international coauthors suspected of authorship fraud, Retraction Watch has learned.
Kelly-Ann Allen, an associate professor at Monash University, in Clayton, and editor-in-chief of two psychology journals, declined to comment for this article.
The retraction notices, both in Frontiers journals, cite an investigation by the publisher confirming “a serious breach of our authorship policies and of publication ethics.”..."
https://retractionwatch.com/2023/12/18/psychology-professor-earns-retractions-after-publishing-with-repeat-offenders/
"At the request of Sage Publishing, the following article has been retracted:
Zhang, H., & Wang, H. (2022). Information skills and literacy in investigative journalism in the social media era. Journal of Information Science, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515221094442
Sage Publishing was made aware that there is evidence that this article was available for sale by third-parties before the manuscript was submitted.
When we attempted to contact the authors for comment, we did not receive a response.
Due to concerns around author contributions to this article, as well as concerns around the integrity of the research process, the article has been retracted..."
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/01655515231220454
COPE threatens Elsevier journal with sanctions for ‘clear breakdown’ before seven retractions
An Elsevier journal has retracted seven articles by a prolific data fabricator – three and a half years after the publisher said it would retract 10 of his papers, and five months after the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) threatened the journal with sanctions for the delay...
The involvement of COPE was probably pivotal in pushing the publisher to act, but, again, had we not repeatedly enquired of COPE as to what was happening, it is likely that nothing would have transpired...
https://retractionwatch.com/2024/01/10/exclusive-cope-threatens-elsevier-journal-with-sanctions-for-clear-breakdown-before-seven-retractions/
Springer Nature journal breaks up with a paper on a love story
"Scientific Reports has retracted a 2023 paper that tried to do just that by imposing a numerical model onto an ancient Persian love story that may have influenced Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet...
The Editors have retracted this Article because of concerns regarding the originality and scientific validity of this work.
An investigation conducted after its publication confirmed that it contains material that substantially overlaps with 1. Furthermore, concerns were raised about nonsensical content. The Editors therefore no longer have confidence in the research presented in this work..."
https://retractionwatch.com/2024/01/14/nonsensical-content-springer-nature-journal-breaks-up-with-a-paper-on-a-love-story/
1. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-51277-3#ref-CR1
"Ten days after retracting nine papers from several journals because they were “lacking scientific base,” a publisher says it has “parted company” with the editor of five of the titles – who had authored or co-authored the papers in question.
As Retraction Watch reported last week, Thieme International retracted the papers, by Hüseyin Çaksen of Necmettin Erbakan University in Turkey, following criticism on social media and at least one story in the Turkish press...
In the matter you are referring to, we unfortunately discovered that Prof. Hüseyin Çaksen, in his function as the editor of five of our pediatric open access journals, had circumvented the allocation of roles, which is essential for a reliable peer review, without our knowledge. In doing so, he violated Thieme’s requirements and those of a proper peer review process. As a result, we have parted company with him with immediate effect..."
https://retractionwatch.com/2024/01/16/publisher-parts-ways-with-editor-of-five-journals-who-published-his-own-studies-on-islamic-practices/
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Materials Science
- Plating