Category Archives: taylor and francis
A retraction notice for a 2021 paper in an environmental sciences journal has us wondering if the peer review process for the publication should be declared a Superfund Site. The article, “Experimental study and numerical prediction of HTO and 36Cl− diffusion in radioactive waste at Téguline Clay,” appeared in Environmental Technology, a Taylor & Francis … Continue reading In which we ask: What exactly did peer review accomplish here?
Dove Press, which late last year retracted more than a dozen articles by a U.S. physician who appears to have used the articles and other publications as marketing material for dietary supplements he sold, has pulled six more of his papers. The new retractions make 20 removals by Dove — a unit of Taylor & … Continue reading Supplement-selling doctor who ran afoul of FDA and state medical board up to 20 retractions
We’re rounding out the week with a third post about paper mills: A Taylor & Francis journal is up to 39 retractions of papers that appear to have been the work of one such mill. Last March, The publication, “Artificial Cells, Nanomedicine, and Biotechnology,” issued an expression of concern for 13 of the articles, after … Continue reading The mill and the loss: Journal up to 39 retractions from paper mill articles
A criminologist whose work has been under scrutiny for a year is set to have a sixth paper retracted, Retraction Watch has learned. Last July, Justin Pickett, of the University of Albany at the State University of New York, posted a 27-page explanation of why he was asking for one of his papers to be … Continue reading Criminology researcher to lose sixth paper
The journal Artificial Cells, Nanomedicine, and Biotechnology has attached expressions of concern to 13 papers published in 2019 that a group of sleuths have flagged for potentially being from a paper mill. In February, Elisabeth Bik wrote on her blog: Based on the resemblance of the Western blot bands to tadpoles (the larval stage of … Continue reading Journal slaps 13 expressions of concern on papers suspected of being from a paper mill
A paper on the human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV) that was called a “very flawed and biased study with the potential of being misinterpreted or misused” has been retracted. The paper was originally published in June 2018, and instantly garnered criticism. “All of the post-publication reports we received described serious flaws in the statistical analysis and … Continue reading Journal retracts paper claiming a link between the HPV vaccine and lower pregnancy rates
A reviewer stole a manuscript and published it himself. But you wouldn’t know it from this retraction notice.
Fish off someone else’s peer review! So writes (in somewhat different words) Mina Mehregan, a mechanical engineer at Ferdowsi University of Mashhad in Iran. Mehregan and a colleague recently discovered that they’d been victimized by a group of unscrupulous reviewers who used the pretext of a long turnaround time to publish a hijacked version of … Continue reading A reviewer stole a manuscript and published it himself. But you wouldn’t know it from this retraction notice.
Less than a year after the entire editorial board of a public health journal resigned in protest of moves by publisher Taylor & Francis, the publisher has decided to call it quits for the journal, Retraction Watch has learned. In November, the editorial board resigned en masse because its members were unhappy with how the … Continue reading Months after an editorial mutiny, publisher decides to shutter public health journal
In 2015, a group of researchers based in Spain decided to write a review article on high blood pressure. But when they looked over eight articles co-authored by the same person, they noticed some undeniable similarities. Over the last few years, Giuseppe Derosa, based at the University of Pavia in Italy, has racked up 10 … Continue reading A distorted record on blood pressure drugs: Why one group is trying to clean up the literature
When the former editor of a public health journal didn’t get a straight answer about why the journal retracted his paper that was critical of corporate-sponsored research, he brought his concerns to an organization dedicated to promoting integrity in academic publishing. He wanted the group to help resolve the impasse he’d reached with the publisher, … Continue reading A frustrated former editor asked a publishing group for help. He didn’t like what they said.