Authors up past 60 retractions amid ongoing investigation

A. Salar Elahi

A group of researchers in Iran now have had more than 60 papers retracted for concerns about peer review and plagiarism as a publisher investigates its back catalog. One of the researchers, A. Salar Elahi, now ranks 7th on the Retraction Watch Leaderboard.

Previously, Elsevier said they would retract 26 papers from the research group at Islamic Azad University in Tehran for fake reviews in 2017 and 2018. The latest batch of 33 retracted papers originally appeared in Springer Nature’s Journal of Fusion Energy as far back as 2009. 

Tim Kersjes, head of research integrity at Springer Nature told us in addition to investigating specific concerns as they arise, his unit also is running “ongoing deep-dive investigations to assess published content that has connections with content that has already been retracted for integrity concerns by ourselves or other publishers.” The recent retractions came from such an investigation that is ongoing, he said. 

The retraction notices state an investigation by Springer Nature found problems “including but not limited to peer review concerns” and “significant overlap” with other published works.

The authors did not respond to correspondence regarding the retractions, the notices stated. Elahi and co-authors K. Mikaili Agah and S. Meshkani also did not respond to our request for comment.

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

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

‘A proper editor would be horrified’: Why did a pediatric journal publish articles on the elderly?

In June, a scientist researching sarcopenia came across a relevant paper about treatment for elderly patients with complications from the disease as well as type 2 diabetes. The paper was “very bad,” he told us. “It looked like someone just copied two or three times the same text.” 

The scientist, who asked to remain anonymous, became even more concerned when he realized the paper, which had the word “elderly” in its title, had been published in a pediatric journal. 

“I started reading other issues of the same journal and noticed that this is a widespread problem: Chinese papers about older adults being published in pediatric journals!” he said. 

He suspected the problems were the work of a “careless editor.”

“I hope that no one is getting money to publish this,” he said. 

The volume of the journal with the sarcopenia paper, Minerva Pediatrics, included 29 articles, of which at least eight letters to the editor described experiments and clinical trials with adult participants, according to our analysis. Two contained the word “elderly” in their titles, including the article on sarcopenia. Others concerned knee osteoarthritis, lumbar spine fractures and other conditions most often seen in geriatric, rather than pediatric, patients. 

All of the authors of the out-of-scope papers were from China, most with email addresses not associated with an institution and containing seemingly random sequences of letters and numbers, which some have suggested is a sign of paper mill activity. We attempted to email several of these addresses, but our queries went unanswered.

Aside from the issue with the sarcopenia paper, we found two letters about “elderly” patients in the June 2023 edition of the journal and one in the February 2024 edition. We’ve compiled a list of out-of-scope papers included in Minerva Pediatrics.

Dorothy Bishop, a sleuth and emeritus professor of developmental neuropsychology at the University of Oxford, England, who reviewed the articles for us, noted that in many journals, letters to the editor are not peer reviewed, and are generally “not a suitable format for papers reporting results of clinical trials, which several of these articles claim to be.” 

The journal, which calls itself the “most ancient international peer-reviewed journal in the field,” purports to publish “articles related to Pediatrics and all its various sub-disciplines.” The papers which fall outside of this scope “all look pretty terrible in terms of quality and I think would not survive peer review in a respectable journal,” Bishop said.

Minerva Pediatrics’ “publishing options” page says for open access, “authors will be asked to pay” an article processing charge (APC) of €1500, or €1200 for letters to the editor. Publishing for subscription access only is free. 

Three other journals from the publisher, Minerva Medica, were denied impact factors by Clarivate this year due to suspicion of citation manipulation. 

Cecilia Belletti, a representative from the publisher, thanked us for our email but did not respond to our questions about why research on elderly patients was included in the pediatric journal or whether her company would remove the suspect papers. 

“A proper editor would be horrified to find this material in their journal and would take steps to sack the editor who let this material through,” Bishop said. “Any other reaction would be suspect.”

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

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

Exclusive: Prof plagiarized postdoc’s work in now-retracted paper, university found

Charles Conteh

A political scientist in Canada copied his postdoc’s work without credit in a paper, according to the retraction notice and a university inquiry report.

The paper by Charles Conteh, a professor at Brock University in St. Catharines, Ontario, appeared in Sage’s Outlook on Agriculture in October 2023. It has one citation, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.

An inquiry by Brock identified plagiarism and uncredited authorship in the article, according to the report finalized this March and seen by Retraction Watch. Failure to give post-doctoral fellows the “opportunity to publish in peer-reviewed journals negatively impacts [them] both reputationally and financially,” the report states. 

Amy Lemay, now a science analyst and founder at VISTA Science & Technology Inc., was Conteh’s postdoctoral fellow from August 2020 to January 2023.

In emails seen by Retraction Watch, Conteh asked Lemay and another faculty member for feedback in March 2023, on a draft of the article they were writing. After reviewing their feedback, Conteh said he could no longer proceed with the project, citing “serious reservations” about Lemay’s suggestions to publish separate papers based on policy reports they had produced for Niagara’s Community Observatory platform. 

“We can (and most likely will) cite them in future papers, but I object to the idea of us reproducing and republishing them in their current forms,” Conteh wrote in an email seen by Retraction Watch. “I plan to revisit this project at a future date, but at this point, after some reflection, what I can candidly say is that I am not clear about a collaborative way forward.”

Months later, Lemay discovered the published paper online by accident. The article used text from the policy briefs she had worked on, without citing those sources. 

“When it finally sunk in, I was angry (outraged, really) and felt betrayed,” Lemay told Retraction Watch. “I took a couple of days to calm down and think through my options for responding. I knew what Dr. Conteh had done was wrong. I felt that I was in a unique position to call it out.” 

Lemay asked Conteh to add her as a co-author to the paper. In October, Conteh asked a journal editor if the authorship could be updated to include Lemay and another co-author’s name. 

Conteh replied he was “glad that you’ve suddenly taken an interest in being a co-author in the manuscript now that it has been published. I am adding your name not because I think you deserve it or are entitled to it, but because it is the noble thing to do.”

In November, Jillian Lenne, an editor at Outlook on Agriculture, said it was too late to update the authorship as the paper was already accepted. Lemay then requested Sage retract the paper for misrepresented authorship and copying previous publications without citation. 

In response to Lemay’s request for retraction, Conteh wrote in the email she “has no basis for claiming co-authorship or requesting retraction of a paper she did not write.” Conteh said Lemay’s acknowledgment in the manuscript as a postdoc should have been sufficient. “By the logic of Amy’s claim to authorship, all research assistants I’ve hired to help me on a project should claim co-authorship whenever I publish an article that draws from a data source they helped me collect or analyze,” he wrote.

Lemay said she finds Conteh’s views on authorship troublesome and that she was responsible for the majority of the research. “This view about what constitutes co-authorship contradicts one of the most fundamental and canonical academic principles,” she said. “That it is an attitude that may be held by other faculty is a serious concern that needs to be addressed to protect graduate students and postdoctoral fellows.”

The article was retracted in May, with the following notice: 

Due to the unattributed text which calls into question the author contributions in this article, the Journal Editor has retracted this article. 

Conteh, who disagreed with the retraction, told Retraction Watch he has no further comment beyond reiterating he was the principal investigator of the project and the retracted article came from that project. 

Lemay said the citations listed in the retraction are incorrect because they credit Conteh as the lead author when it should be her. A spokesperson for Sage said they are working to correct the citations.

Though she recently finished a postdoc, Lemay worked in academia for 25 years before pursuing her PhD. At this point in her career, she said, she is not intimidated by the “power imbalance” in academia, as some younger students who are still forging a career path may be.

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

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

VOH Recap: Biodiversity on a Changing Planet (BoCP) 

The BoCP program hosted a Virtual Office Hours July 8th to discuss the program and answer questions from community members. If you were unable to attend, here are some of the questions asked during the Q & A section:

How do you define Functional Biodiversity?

We realize that functional biodiversity has been defined many ways. In the context of the BoCP solicitation, Functional biodiversity refers to the numerous roles of traits, organisms, species, communities, and ecosystem processes in natural systems. Functional biodiversity also includes the roles of emergent properties and processes across all levels of biological organization. We emphasize that successful BoCP proposals will integrate evolutionary and ecological aspects of functional biodiversity (please see the solicitation-specific criteria in the solicitation).

Does “a changing planet” mean specifically climate related changes (i.e., warming, changes in precipitation), or will proposals that look at human management choices or land use change also fit the idea of changing planet?

In the context of the BoCP solicitation, environmental change includes, but is not limited to, climate change.

Do you have to submit a Design Track before an Implementation Track proposal?

No, you do not. If your project team and ideas are sufficiently developed you may directly submit to the Implementation Track.

Are there limits on the activities of the Design grants? Specifically, can much of the Design grant budget fund data collection (going beyond meetings and collecting preliminary or “proof-of-concept” data)?

Design proposals are aimed at building new teams with no prior collaborative history and must combine specific team-building activities over the three years of the project with the development of creative research and technical approaches that start to address critical, but perhaps untested, novel, or high-risk aspects of functional diversity and biodiversity dynamics in the context of changing environmental conditions.

Are there any differences in required components between design track and the implementation (e.g. review of SAIF plan, project management and mentoring plans etc.) or are they identical?

There is no difference in the required documents. For Design track proposals, the project description must describe how building a new team is combined with the development of creative research and technical approaches that start to address critical, but perhaps untested, novel, or high-risk aspects of the functional axes of biodiversity. Successful Design track proposals will articulate how the team formation includes diverse perspectives and approaches, collaboration, and coordination strategies. For Implementation track proposals, the project description must describe how the proposed research has a high potential to engender substantial research advances in understanding functional biodiversity on a changing planet, and clearly articulate a compelling vision of advances beyond existing efforts.

What is typical size of an Implementation Track Budget?

As with our Core programs, we encourage PIs to request the budget they need to successfully complete the project. The budget should be carefully and clearly justified to make the relationship between the scope of the work and the size of the budget as clear as possible.  

Can you have partnerships involving more than one of the formal international partners or collaborators that are not from countries represented by one of the international partners?

Yes. Multilateral collaborative proposals, involving NSF and more than one international partner among NSFC, FAPESP, and NRF will also be considered.

The agreements with the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) of Brazil, and the National Research Foundation (NRF) of South Africa do not preclude other international collaborations (see solicitation for additional details). Do note, for proposals that include funding to an International Branch Campus of a U.S. Institute of Higher Education or to a foreign organization or foreign individual (including through use of a subaward or consultant arrangement), the proposer must provide the requisite explanation/justification in the project description.

If you have a collaboration with one of the formal international partners, does the research necessarily have to take place in those countries?

Proposals including partnerships with the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) of Brazil, and the National Research Foundation (NRF) of South Africa must meet the eligibility requirements of those organizations. There is no specific requirement that projects including international partners take place in those countries.

For the international collaboration, do the collaborating funding agencies (e.g., National Natural Science Foundation of China) review the proposals separately or are they obligated to fund if the proposal succeeds at NSF?

In each case, the NSF submission must be mirrored by a proposal submitted to the partner agency. We strongly encourage the international PIs to confer with the international program officer(s) on the documentation needed for the international submission prior to the international agency’s submission deadline.

As I understand it, the NSF’s BoCP solicitation document says that the NRF-South African submission should be exactly the same as the NSF submission, is this correct?

Yes, for US-South Africa joint research projects, an identical scientific research project description must be submitted to NSF by the U.S. researcher, and to NRF by the South African collaborator(s). The proposal budget submitted to NSF should include only the costs of U.S. participants; the anticipated budget for South African participants should be submitted as a supplementary document.

What is a SAIF plan and when is it required?

All proposals submitted to this solicitation that include research that will be conducted off-campus or off-site must submit a Safe and Inclusive Fieldwork (SAIF) Plan as a supplemental document that will be considered under the broader impacts review criterion. Off-campus or off-site research is defined as data/information/samples being collected off-campus or off-site, such as fieldwork and research activities on vessels and aircraft. A more detailed description of the SAIF Plan is in the BoCP solicitation: https://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/biodiversity-changing-planet-bocp/nsf24-574/solicitation#prep and further information on SAIF plans can be found at https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2023/nsf23071/nsf23071.jsp.

Can proposal teams include Senior Personnel from international institutions that has an adjunct position at a U.S. institution? Could post-docs apply these projects as CO-PIs?

This would be up to the institution at which the adjunct or postdoctoral appointment is held.

Is postdoc/graduate student mentoring plan required?

Any proposal that requests funding to support postdoctoral scholars or graduate students must include a Mentoring Plan. See https://new.nsf.gov/policies/pappg/24-1/ch-2-proposal-preparation#ch2D2i-i for more details.

Can one be a co-PI on one proposal and a PI on a second application?

Yes. There are no restrictions or limits on the number of proposals per organization or the number of proposals per PI or co-PI.

Posted by in Uncategorized

Permalink

Posted by in Uncategorized

Permalink

Elsevier investigating geology journal after allegations of pal review

M. Santosh

Elsevier is investigating the journal Geoscience Frontiers after a PubPeer thread flagged an editorial advisor whose articles in the journal were edited by his frequent co-authors. 

The editorial advisor, M. Santosh, is a professor at the University of Adelaide in Australia and a “Highly Cited Researcher” with more than 1,500 published articles, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science

The PubPeer commenter, “Desmococcus antarctica,” noted that two associate editors of the journal, Vinod O. Samuel of Yonsei University in Seoul and Erath Shaji of the University of Kerala in Thiruvananthapuram, India,  are often listed as “Handling Editors” of Santosh’s articles published in Geoscience Frontiers — despite each frequently publishing other work with him. 

A representative from Elsevier told us the publisher was looking into the matter, adding that “we expect our publishing partners to uphold our publishing policies, including the proper conduct of peer-review.” Elsevier publishes Geoscience Frontiers on behalf of China University of Geosciences (Beijing) and Peking University. 

None of the researchers have responded to our request for comment, nor has Xuanxue Mo, editor-in-chief of the journal and professor at China University of Geosciences (Beijing). 

Samuel edited at least 20 of Santosh’s papers in Geoscience Frontiers from 2017 to 2024, according to the PubPeer post. “Due to the massiveness of the scale on which this happened,” the Pub Peer comment stops at 20 instances, Desmococcus states. 

Samuel and Santosh have co-authored at least 15 papers together in multiple journals, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. 

Similarly, Shaji edited at least 10 of Santosh’s articles in Geoscience Frontiers from 2017 to 2024. The two were co-authors on at least 29 papers from 2016 to 2023 in different journals, according to Web of Science. 

Desmococcus has flagged many other papers by Santosh in Geoscience Frontiers on PubPeer.  

Beyond Geoscience Frontiers, Desmococcus has chronicled similar instances of Santosh’s frequent co-authors editing his papers at other journals, as reported by For Better Science. 

In one incident, a report from the 5GH Foundation, a China-based “non-profit organization for promoting science and technology,” alleged Santosh had initially been listed as the handling editor of his own paper at Geoscience Frontiers. The paper now lists Chakravadhanula Manikyamba, a researcher at the National Geophysical Research Institute, as handling editor (although her name is misspelled as “Manikyabma”). 

Manikyamba is another frequent editor of Santosh’s articles in Geoscience Frontiers, as Desmococcus points out on PubPeer. She edited at least four of his papers and has co-authored three papers with him since 2022, according to Web of Science. 

Santosh’s record also includes a retraction. In 2020, his paper “Hydrocarbon reserves of the south China sea: Implications for regional energy security” was removed “because it inadvertently included unlawful content.” The editor-in-chief of the journal where it appeared, Energy Geoscience, did not respond to our request for clarity on what constitutes “unlawful content,” but an Elsevier spokesperson told us that the authors requested the removal “because they had inadvertently breached legal regulations.”

Elsevier’s website states it will remove an article only in “extremely limited number of cases,” in which the article is “defamatory, or infringes others’ legal rights, and retraction is not a sufficient remedy.” An article will also be removed if Elsevier “has good reason to expect it will be” the subject of a court order, or if it would pose a “serious health risk” if acted upon.

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

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

Open Access! Million Veteran Program Genome-Wide PheWAS Results Now Available in dbGaP!

The Million Veteran Program (MVP) is a research program from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that has collected and analyzed health information from over one million veteran volunteers. The data include genes, lifestyles, military experiences, and exposures that may impact health and wellness.   The results of the MVP phenome-wide association study (PheWAS) … Continue reading Open Access! Million Veteran Program Genome-Wide PheWAS Results Now Available in dbGaP!

Giant rat penis redux: AI-generated diagram, errors lead to retraction

In an episode reminiscent of the AI-generated graphic of a rat with a giant penis, another paper with an anatomically incorrect image has been retracted after it attracted attention on social media. The authors admit using ChatGPT to make the diagram. 

According to the retraction notice published July 12, the article, by researchers at Guangdong Provincial Hydroelectric Hospital in Guangzhou, China, was retracted after “concerns were raised over the integrity of the data and an inaccurate figure.” 

The paper, published in Lippincott’s Medicine, purported to describe a randomized controlled trial that found alkaline water could reduce pain and alleviate symptoms of chronic gouty arthritis.

Morgan Pfiffner, a researcher for Examine.com, an online database for nutrition and supplement research, first noticed the study while on vacation and posted on X about the erroneous diagram in the article. 

“I planned to inform the journal when I got back, but that graphic was just too absurd not to share on social media once I saw it,” Pfiffner told Retraction Watch. Another X user found the paper’s introduction to be 100% AI-generated.

Commenters including Elizabeth Bik and Thomas Kesteman chimed in on PubPeer, echoing Pfiffner’s concerns. Bik pointed out that Figure 4 had the wrong number of bones in the lower leg and arm and had nonsensical labels such as “chlsinkestead atlvs no ctivktty greuedis” and “Aliainine jerve sreiter.” She also noted inconsistencies in the data and seemingly unrealistic methods.

Kesteman highlighted additional issues: Some of the references in the article do not appear in PubMed or Google Scholar, and the authors’ email addresses were not institutional – which, we note, is considered a red flag but not always a sign of problems. Further, the results of some statistical analyses were “virtually impossible,” Kesteman said, and data on pain scores in a table “present patterns that are impossible to find in real life.”

Yong Wu, the corresponding author of the study, told Retraction Watch English is not the team’s first language, and the cost for translation was prohibitively expensive. 

“Therefore, our research team has resorted to using AI for text translation and refinement. Similarly, the expense of scientific illustration is beyond our means, which led us to use ChatGPT for generating research diagrams,” Wu said. “We apologize for any controversy this may have caused.” 

A spokesperson for Medicine said the journal is continually improving its editorial review process. “We are working on a number of initiatives to help shape the future of medical research reviews based on collaboration with other leading publishers, dedication to peer reviews and leveraging new technologies,” they said.

“It seems to me that AI graphic itself was just the tip of the iceberg of research misconduct permeating that study,” Pfiffner said. “I’m glad it has been swiftly retracted.”

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

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

Posted by in Uncategorized

Permalink

Weekend reads: The world’s most cited cat; ‘Is peer review failing its peer review?’; Oxford prof accused of stealing research

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 past 400. There are more than 49,000 retractions in The Retraction Watch Database — which is now part of Crossref. The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker now contains more than 250 titles. And have you seen our leaderboard of authors with the most retractions lately — or our list of top 10 most highly cited retracted papers? What about The Retraction Watch Mass Resignations List — or our list of nearly 100 papers with evidence they were written by ChatGPT?

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

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

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.