KPMG government report on research integrity makes up reference involving Retraction Watch founders

An August 2023 report on research integrity by consulting firm KPMG, commissioned by an Australian government agency, contains a made-up reference, Retraction Watch has discovered.

Reference 139 of the report, “International Research Integrity Policy Scan Final Report: Compilation of information about research integrity arrangements outside Australia,” reads:

Gunsalus CK, Marcus AR, Oransky I, Stern JM. Institutional and individual factors that promote research integrity. In: Macrina FL, editor. Scientific Integrity: Text and Cases in Responsible Conduct of Research. 4th ed. Washington, DC: ASM Press; 2018. p. 53-82. 

A book with that title exists, but the four authors listed did not contribute a chapter, and the 2018 edition does not appear to contain a chapter with that title. We – Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky – have indeed published with CK Gunsalus, but nothing resembling this reference.

We spot-checked about 20 of the other references in the book, and while there are some punctuation errors, the rest of the citations we reviewed exist. So this seemed to be a single error of unclear provenance. We wanted to let KPMG know, and find out what they would do about it.

We contacted KPMG Australia’s press team on Jan. 28. They acknowledged receipt of our email the same day, but when we didn’t hear back a week later, we followed up. On Feb. 6, we sent some questions we wanted on-the-record answers to, and waited. 

Although as journalists we prefer to speak directly with people involved, none of this was unusual in seeking comment from companies and government agencies.

On Feb. 12, we followed up to check on progress, and were told scheduling had been difficult, and that answers would be forthcoming. We followed up on Feb. 14 and received no response. We then followed up again on Feb. 18 to say we were getting the impression the company had decided not to respond but that we would be publishing soon.

We have not heard back since. Which is puzzling – if there’s a clumsy error in a single reference, why not just acknowledge that, explain it, and move on?

A spokesperson for Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), which commissioned the document, thanked us for raising the issue with them, and said the agency “will work with KPMG to correct the report.” The consulting firm had not yet contacted NHMRC, the spokesperson said.

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, subscribe to our free daily digest or paid weekly updatefollow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, or add us to your RSS reader. If you find a retraction that’s not in The Retraction Watch Database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.

PNAS wouldn’t let authors cite unpublished manuscript. Now, it admits it was wrong.

Question: Do you value Retraction Watch? If so, would you consider a tax-deductible donation of $25, or a recurring donation of an amount of your choosing, to support us? When researchers submitted a paper about a type of microparticle to PNAS, they wanted to give credit where it was due, and cite an unpublished manuscript … Continue reading PNAS wouldn’t let authors cite unpublished manuscript. Now, it admits it was wrong.

The “phantom reference:” How a made-up article got almost 400 citations

Here’s a mystery: How did a nonexistent paper rack up hundreds of citations? Pieter Kroonenberg, an emeritus professor of statistics at Leiden University in The Netherlands, was puzzled when he tried to locate a paper about academic writing and discovered the article didn’t exist. In fact, the journal—Journal of Science Communications—also didn’t exist. Perhaps Kroonenberg’s […]

The post The “phantom reference:” How a made-up article got almost 400 citations appeared first on Retraction Watch.

Miffed at exclusion from a meta-analysis, researcher writes own “expression of concern”

On June 10, Psycho-Oncology, a journal that publishes research on the “psychological, social, behavioral, and ethical” side of cancer, received a complaint. In a letter, Ad Kaptein, a researcher at the Leiden University Medical Centre, in the Netherlands, wrote to say that a review and meta-analysis published by the journal that month hadn’t adequately cited […]

The post Miffed at exclusion from a meta-analysis, researcher writes own “expression of concern” appeared first on Retraction Watch.

Reader complaints prompt retraction of meta-analysis of heart-failure drug

A cardiology journal has retracted a 2016 meta-analysis after the editors had an, ahem, change of heart about the rigor of the study. The article, “Ivabradine as adjuvant treatment for chronic heart failure,” was published in the International Journal of Cardiology, an Elsevier title. The authors, a group at the Federal University of São Paulo, […]

The post Reader complaints prompt retraction of meta-analysis of heart-failure drug appeared first on Retraction Watch.

Historian returns prize for high-profile book with 70+ corrections

A historian based at Columbia University has returned a 2014 prize after criticisms prompted him to issue more than 70 corrections to his prominent book about North Korea. Charles Armstrong told Retraction Watch he returned the 2014 John K. Fairbank Prize he received for “Tyranny of the Weak” due to “numerous citation errors.” The book has […]

The post Historian returns prize for high-profile book with 70+ corrections appeared first on Retraction Watch.

High-profile book on North Korea earns 52 corrections

The author of a high-profile book about the history of North Korea is issuing 52 corrections to the next edition, scheduled to appear this spring. The changes follow heavy criticism of the book, alleging it contained material not supported by the list of references. Last month, author Charles Armstrong, a professor at Columbia University, announced on […]

The post High-profile book on North Korea earns 52 corrections appeared first on Retraction Watch.

We’re not “citation police:” No more errata for omitted citations, says economics journal

An economics journal has corrected a paper for the second time for failing to cite previous studies — and said in a separate note that it no longer plans to publish similar errata, with rare exceptions.  In September 2015, we reported on the first erratum for “Incentives for Creativity” — a paper that analyzed ways […]

The post We’re not “citation police:” No more errata for omitted citations, says economics journal appeared first on Retraction Watch.

Criticism swirls around high-profile history book about North Korea

An award-winning account of North Korea during the Cold War has fallen under criticism, claiming the author included material not supported by the list of references. One historian has uploaded a series of what he calls “noteworthy problems” with Tyranny of the Weak, winner of the John K. Fairbank Prize in East Asian History in 2014. Balazs […]

The post Criticism swirls around high-profile history book about North Korea appeared first on Retraction Watch.

A paper on chemical safety was accepted one day after submission. Was it peer reviewed?

Some scientists raise their eyebrows when they see a paper was accepted only a day or two after being submitted — which is exactly what happened during an academic debate over a controversial topic: e-cigarettes. In 2015, a group of Harvard researchers published a paper in Environmental Health Perspectives suggesting the flavoring added to e-cigarettes could be […]

The post A paper on chemical safety was accepted one day after submission. Was it peer reviewed? appeared first on Retraction Watch.