Category Archives: cureus

05Apr / 2024

Cureus reviewing paper alleged to plagiarize Lancet article

A 2022 paper in Cureus on causes of cancer around the world is under investigation by the journal following inquiries by Retraction Watch prompted by a reader’s email.

The paper, “Causes of Cancer in the World: Comparative Risk Assessment of Nine Behavioral and Environmental Risk Factors,” shares a title and figures with a 2005 paper in The Lancet. It also “follows the Lancet one on a sentence-by-sentence level while using tortured phrases,” an anonymous tipster told us.

As we’ve noted elsewhere in a report on the team that developed the phrase, “Tortured phrases are what happens to words that get translated from English into a foreign language, then back to English — perhaps by a computer trying to generate a scholarly publication for a group of unscrupulous authors.”

Graham Parker, Cureus’ director of publishing and customer success, told us to his knowledge,  “ the journal has not been contacted with any concerns regarding this article. Now that we are aware of a concern, we will examine both articles in question to see if any action is required.”

Neither Khizer K. Ansari, the corresponding author of the Cureus paper and a student at Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College in Wardha, India, nor Majid Ezzati, the corresponding author of  the article in The Lancet  and a professor at Imperial College London, responded to requests for comment.

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, subscribe to our free daily digest or paid weekly update, follow 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.

Posted by in cureus

Permalink

12Mar / 2024

Journal blacklists doctor in Pakistan ‘out of an abundance of caution’

Following an investigation into possible paper mill activities, the journal Cureus has barred a doctor in Pakistan from publishing more papers “out of an abundance of caution,” Retraction Watch has learned.

The journal investigated Satish Kumar, an internist at Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Medical College in Karachi, after a tipster accused him of selling authorship of scientific papers to scientists who did not participate in the research. 

The tipster, who wishes to remain anonymous to avoid backlash from the authors of these papers, sent Cureus WhatsApp messages from a group called “research Match Residency.” There, a user named ”SSS” sent paper titles and offered author slots on manuscripts. Many of the articles were slated for publication in Cureus. 

The tipster also shared the WhatsApp messages with Retraction Watch, telling us:

I have known Dr. Satesh Kumar for a couple of years and previously had his contact information saved in my phone. Upon his online advertisements in various WhatsApp groups, I recognized the name already saved in my phone from our prior communication. 

Graham Parker, director of Publishing and Customer Success at Cureus, told Retraction Watch:

We conducted a thorough investigation and were unable to confirm these allegations. However, the circumstantial evidence presented to the journal was, out of an abundance of caution, enough to warrant the rejection of any in-progress article submissions that involved Dr. Kumar. Additionally, Dr. Kumar’s Cureus account was permanently suspended. 

Several of the paper titles advertised in the WhatsApp group match papers in Cureus, according to screenshots and a video shared with Retraction Watch. Satish Kumar (spelled Satesh Kumar in two of the articles) is listed as an author on all of the papers, which include: 

However, Parker stated that the journal did not find “irrefutable proof” authorship slots were “sold on any articles submitted to or published in Cureus.”

He added:

All authors that were questioned stated they had no knowledge of any such activity and extensive working materials were produced showing the collaborative work by the authors. As a result, the journal found no basis for retraction.

In response to the findings of the investigation, Kumar told Retraction Watch by email:

I certainly deny all allegations for which i have provided all the material and proof to Cureus and Mr parker in cureus. There is no single proof where they can prove i am included in any of such allegations. I have all materials and i am open to arrange and speak on call as well to give more explanation. I have already provided all materials to Mr Parker and [Cureus reviewer] Prof guistino Varassi. I am more than ready to provide an explanation and evidences to you as well considering, i am innocent and have no such involvement. 

However, Kumar refused to go on the record during a subsequent call with Retraction Watch. Later, he wrote by email:

I sent emails to journal that if they dont have anything proven, they should unban me, however i can’t force someone to do because they are the owner of their journal. 

The tipster also accused Kumar of using AI to author at least a portion of six of his more recent papers, which the tipster checked using the app GPT Zero, a tool that has proven accurate at flagging machine-generated medical text. Based on the abstracts of these papers, the use of AI varied from 65% to 97%.

On March 7, Parker wrote in an email to the tipster:

I’d like to once again thank you for your dedication to scientific integrity and fairness. We have conducted a thorough review regarding potential use of generative AI tools in Satesh Kumar’s articles and are unable to make a conclusive determination. ZeroGPT, GPTZero and similar tools cannot be relied upon in this regard as they have been shown to produce many false positives (perhaps most famously indicating that the United States Constitution was written by AI), but they also do not distinguish between generative AI tools (such as ChatGPT) and proofreading tools such as Grammarly.

As a result, we do not intend to take any further action regarding these articles. However, Dr. Kumar’s account will remain permanently suspended out of an abundance of caution, as the journal no longer wishes to work with him in any capacity. Thanks again for your time and energy on this.

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, subscribe to our free daily digest or paid weekly update, follow 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.

Posted by in cureus

Permalink

19Feb / 2024

Paper claiming ‘extensive’ harms of COVID-19 vaccines to be retracted

A journal is retracting a paper on the purported harms of vaccines against COVID-19 written in part by authors who have had similar work retracted before.

The article, “COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign,” appeared late last month in Cureus, which used to be a stand-alone journal but is now owned by Springer Nature. (It has appeared frequently in these pages.)

Graham Parker, Director of Publishing and Customer Success at Cureus, told Retraction Watch:

I can confirm we will be retracting it by the end of the week, as we have provided the authors with a deadline to reply and indicate whether they agree or disagree with the retraction.

The senior author on the work was Peter McCullough, a cardiologist at the Institute of Pure and Applied Knowledge who lost his board certification after the American Board of Internal Medicine found he had “provided false or inaccurate medical information to the public.”

Indeed, McCullough had already lost one paper, in Current Problems in Cardiology, from Elsevier, when he and his colleagues submitted their latest opus to Cureus. And SSRN, which hosts preprints for The Lancet, another Elsevier journal, had removed work by him and colleagues claiming large numbers of deaths from COVID-19 vaccines.  

A few days after the paper appeared, we asked John Adler Jr., the editor in chief of Cureus, if the track record of the authors concerned him. His response seemed to admit to the risk, but he also defended the journal’s vetting of the paper: 

Yes I am aware that many of these authors are skeptical zealots when it comes to the dangers of vaccines. Our editorial response was extra vigilance during the peer review process with 8 different reviewers weighing in on publication or not, including a few with strong statistics knowledge. Therefore, a credible peer review process was followed and the chips fell where they may. That is all I can say. If you or other readers were to note fatal flaws in this article now that it is published, i.e. failure to accurately report financial COIs [conflicts of interest], totally erroneous statistical analysis, fake data etc. we will of course re-evaluate at any time.

Adler then took a jab at other journals:  

The decision process Cureus made, contrasts sharply with Elsevier’s seeming editorial decision to just censor the article using ad hominem concerns.

In a Feb. 9, 2024 letter to the journal and the publisher, John P. Moore, a microbiologist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, and Gregg Gonsalves, an epidemiologist at Yale School of Public Health, in New Haven, Conn., expressed their “serious concerns” about the article. Among their objections: 

The authors utterly lack relevant professional qualifications that would enable them to assess the scientific publications they draw on and/or attempt to criticize. The authors self-describe their affiliations under the rubric of “Independent Research”, or list private foundations, or in one case report an academic discipline unrelated to biology. In short, the authors cannot draw on years of training in biological science, but appear to be self-taught via the “University of Google”.

They continue:

The point here is that the Cureus review merely regurgitates claims about mRNA vaccines that have circulated on the internet and been debunked over and over again, including by fact-checking organizations (e.g., Factcheck.org, and the USA Today and Politico factcheck teams).

They conclude: 

By bringing this highly problematic review to your attention, we hope that you will conduct a thorough review of how it was accepted for publication in Cureus under the Springer Nature imprimatur. How appropriate was the peer review process? How did the editor act? Is the acceptance of this review symptomatic of a wider problem at the journal? Finally, if you share our views that this review is so flawed as to be dangerous to public health, you may well decide that it should be retracted.

Springer Nature had apparently been looking into the case already, and ended up agreeing with Moore, Gonsalves and other critics of the article. 

Steve Kirsch, a co-author of the paper, announced the retraction on his Substack over the weekend:

The paper I co-authored with 6 other authors will be retracted by the journal because the publisher won’t allow any paper that is counter-narrative to be published.

According to Kirsch’s post, Springer Nature’s inquiry found: 

a significant number of concerns with your article that in our view can’t be remedied with a correction. The concerns include, but are not limited to: 

  1. We find that the article is misrepresenting all-cause mortality data
  2. We find that the article appears to be misrepresenting VAERs data
  3. The article states that the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine saved two lives and caused 27 deaths per 100,000 vaccinations, and the Moderna vaccine saved 3.9 lives and caused 10.8 deaths per 100,000 vaccinations, though there does not appear to be convincing evidence for this claim. 
  4. Incorrect claim: Vaccines are gene therapy products.
  5. The article states that vaccines are contaminated with high levels of DNA. Upon review we found that the cited references are not sufficient to support these claims. 
  6. The article states that SV40 promoter can cause cancer because SV40 virus can cause cancer in some organisms and inconclusively in humans. However, we find that this is misrepresenting the cited study (Li, S., MacLaughlin, F., Fewell, J. et al. Muscle-specific enhancement of gene expression by incorporation of SV40 enhancer in the expression plasmid. Gene Ther 8, 494–497 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.gt.3301419 
  7. The article states that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines did not undergo adequate safety and efficacy testing, which the journal considers to be incorrect
  8. The article incorrectly states that spike proteins produced by COVID-19 vaccination linger in the body and cause adverse effects.

Waving the white flag, a bowed but unbroken Kirsch wrote: 

It doesn’t do any good to show them these reasons are all bogus. The laundry list of items is simply a placeholder to make it look like the journal is following the science.

Nothing we can say on appeal will make any difference.

The decision was made to retract the paper and facts don’t matter. It’s about supporting the narrative. When they write “in our view can’t be remedied with a correction” it means “don’t even bother arguing with us, your paper is retracted.”

For his part, Moore said:

The journal and publisher responded courteously and professionally to our letter, and I was pleased by the final outcome. They did what needed to be done.

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, subscribe to our free daily digest or paid weekly update, follow 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.

Posted by in covid 19, cureus

Permalink

26Jan / 2024

Journal retracts more than 50 studies from Saudi Arabia for faked authorship

The journal Cureus has retracted 56 papers nearly two years after it first began to suspect the works were of dubious lineage.

Cureus – an open access journal founded in 2009 and acquired by Springer Nature in 2022 – slapped 55 of the papers with expressions of concern in April 2022. At that time, at least one author said they didn’t know anything about the work and Cureus noted the “articles were submitted and subsequently published purportedly as an effort coordinated by Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University to ensure all medical interns publish at least one peer-reviewed article in order to qualify for enrollment in a postgraduate residency program as stipulated by The Saudi Commission for Health Specialties (SCFHS).”

At the time, Cureus’ founding editor in chief John Adler told us “The investigation has been frustratingly slow due to the relative unresponsiveness of Saudi gov officials.” Apparently, that remained the case. This week, the journal retracted 56 studies. All of the retraction notices read the same way:

The Editors-in-Chief have retracted this article. Concerns were raised regarding the identity of the authors on this article. Specifically, Faisal Alhaway and Malak Shammari have stated that they were added to this article without their knowledge or approval. The identity of the other authors could also not be verified. As the appropriate authorship of this work cannot be established, the Editors-in-Chief no longer have confidence in the results and conclusions of this article.

We asked Springer Nature why the move had taken nearly two years. Graham Parker-Finger, Cureus’ director of publishing and customer services, told us through a spokesperson:

We agree that editorial action on problematic content should happen as quickly as possible, but we need to ensure we are acting responsibly and appropriately.  Our initial investigation attempts stalled after we experienced protracted difficulties in communicating with the relevant parties.  Although all of the articles were reviewed by at least one independent peer reviewer and underwent several rounds of journal editorial review, based on the lack of follow-up and inability to connect with anyone related to the case, the journal made the decision to publish an expression of concern for each article.

Adler told us:

After a dozen or so failed attempts to communicate with Saudi Government authorities over the better part of a year, we decided to retract all these articles. The editorial team could not convince ourselves that anything in these articles was wrong, but neither could we vouch for their authenticity, especially with the primary authors simply vanishing. The circumstances here are so peculiar given the seeming lack of any clear motivation by the authors and the ghosting of us by Saudi authorities. So out of an abundance of caution we made the decision to retract and just move on.

Parker-Finger continued:

It is our position that our primary responsibility is to the public (and more specifically, the scientific community) to only publish credible medical science. While the authorship issues are undoubtedly suspicious, the journal still has no reason to doubt the scientific accuracy of the articles, which contributed to the delay to act as we worked through the most appropriate course of action. At the time these decisions were made, the journal was also engaged in acquisition talks with Springer Nature and we determined that the best course of action would be to work with Springer Nature’s research integrity and legal resources on next steps, given the level of uncertainty regarding the situation.

He said the journal has “undertaken a number of activities to prevent a similar situation occurring in future:”

Our system now has an automated function for the identification and rejection of submissions that include authors with illegitimate email domains such as boximail.com.  It also sends an automated notification to senior editorial staff if one author submits multiple submissions over a short period and these cases will be followed by inquiry and, if needed, full investigation.  Our submissions editors have been trained to identify and flag suspicious publishing activity of this type and senior editorial staff have been thoroughly briefed on details of case for awareness and advice on appropriate steps to take including contacting department leadership to authenticate identities.”

Here are the 56 articles:

  1. Owedah R J, Alshehri O A, Alfneekh N I, et al. (September 17, 2021) Acute Omental Infarction Mimicking Acute Appendicitis. Cureus 13(9): e18053. doi:10.7759/cureus.18053
  2. Alqahtani S S, Altowygry S M, Alebiwani T E, et al. (September 18, 2021) Saddle Aortic Embolism Following Recovery From Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia. Cureus 13(9): e18074. doi:10.7759/cureus.18074
  3. Al Furaikh B F, Alzahrani N A, Alghamdi A A, et al. (September 22, 2021) Urachal Abscess: A Rare Etiology of Acute Abdominal Pain in Adults. Cureus 13(9): e18193. doi:10.7759/cureus.18193
  4. Alshuaylan R N, Alismail A A, Haobani F M, et al. (October 01, 2021) Colloid Cyst: A Potentially Life-Threatening Etiology of Severe Headache in a Patient With Migraine. Cureus 13(10): e18424. doi:10.7759/cureus.18424
  5. Alnass A J, Alamer R A, Alamri H H, et al. (October 01, 2021) Posterior Reversible Encephalopathy Syndrome: A Rare Complication in COVID-19. Cureus 13(10): e18426. doi:10.7759/cureus.18426
  6. Aldabbab H Y, Hakeem M A, Alanazi F M, et al. (October 07, 2021) Isolated Polycystic Liver Disease: A Rare Genetic Disorder. Cureus 13(10): e18560. doi:10.7759/cureus.18560
  7. Alabdullatif S M, Alajwad M H, Kareemah M F, et al. (October 07, 2021) Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: An Overlooked Etiology of Low Back Pain. Cureus 13(10): e18587. doi:10.7759/cureus.18587
  8. Assad M A, Boushal T A, Halawani Z W, et al. (October 12, 2021) Amyand Hernia With Acute Appendicitis: A Rare Type of Hernia. Cureus 13(10): e18720. doi:10.7759/cureus.18720
  9. Khashoggi A A, Hakami N A, Alghamdi M A, et al. (October 17, 2021) Hematocolpos: An Unusual Cause of Right Iliac Fossa Pain. Cureus 13(10): e18835. doi:10.7759/cureus.18835
  10. Alaithan F A, Aljawad M H, Ghawas A H, et al. (October 19, 2021) Pulmonary Embolism in COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Case-Control Study. Cureus 13(10): e18887. doi:10.7759/cureus.18887
  11. Bin Saqyan T M, Basunbul L I, Badahdah A A, et al. (October 21, 2021) Abdominal Pseudocyst: A Rare Complication of Ventriculoperitoneal Shunts. Cureus 13(10): e18956. doi:10.7759/cureus.18956
  12. Sultan M A, Hakami A A, Alshabri M I, et al. (October 26, 2021) Gastric Volvulus: A Rare Etiology of Acute Chest Pain. Cureus 13(10): e19067. doi:10.7759/cureus.19067
  13. Alshamrani A M, Aldawsari A M, Alhassoun S A, et al. (November 04, 2021) Complete Lumbar Spine Dislocation With Full Neurological Recovery. Cureus 13(11): e19249. doi:10.7759/cureus.19249
  14. Mofti A H, Ghabashi F A, Sadagah M M, et al. (November 06, 2021) Sclerosing Encapsulating Peritonitis Following Recovery From COVID-19 Pneumonia. Cureus 13(11): e19306. doi:10.7759/cureus.19306
  15. Alshammari M, Aljohani M A, Hashash J M, et al. (November 09, 2021) Shwachman-Diamond Syndrome in a Child Presenting With Chronic Diarrhea: A Rare Case in Family Medicine Practice. Cureus 13(11): e19391. doi:10.7759/cureus.19391
  16. Alshammari F A, Alotaibi A M, Alali M A, et al. (November 09, 2021) Schwannoma: A Rare Etiology of Pancoast Syndrome. Cureus 13(11): e19418. doi:10.7759/cureus.19418
  17. Alnashri Y A, Alhuzali A M, Edrees E A, et al. (November 09, 2021) Cecal Lipoma: A Rare Etiology of Acute Appendicitis in Adults. Cureus 13(11): e19423. doi:10.7759/cureus.19423
  18. Alzahrani R A, Alzahrani O M, Alherz S H, et al. (November 13, 2021) Isolated Superior Mesenteric Artery Dissection After Methamphetamine Use: A Rare Adverse Effect. Cureus 13(11): e19551. doi:10.7759/cureus.19551
  19. Alzahrani R A, Alghamdi A F, Alzahrani M A, et al. (November 16, 2021) A Giant Porencephaly: A Rare Etiology of Pediatric Seizures. Cureus 13(11): e19623. doi:10.7759/cureus.19623
  20. Albaqami A M, Al-Salam H A, Alhagbani M A, et al. (November 17, 2021) Laparoscopic Port Site Hernia: A Rare Etiology of Intestinal Obstruction. Cureus 13(11): e19681. doi:10.7759/cureus.19681
  21. Alfahhad M F, Qasem H A, Alrajhi N N, et al. (November 19, 2021) Ruptured Isolated Common Iliac Artery Aneurysm Masquerading as Renal Colic. Cureus 13(11): e19752. doi:10.7759/cureus.19752
  22. Alfahhad M F, Alghamdi S S, Alzahrani O A, et al. (November 20, 2021) Cerebral Venous Infarct After Recovery From COVID-19 Pneumonia. Cureus 13(11): e19763. doi:10.7759/cureus.19763
  23. Alamer M F, Alhuthaly S K, Alfahhad M F, et al. (November 24, 2021) Retroperitoneal Lipoma: An Unusual Etiology of Urge Incontinence. Cureus 13(11): e19878. doi:10.7759/cureus.19878
  24. Altuwayr R M, Almutairi F S, Alkhaibari S H, et al. (November 25, 2021) Spontaneous Rupture of Large Angiomyolipoma of the Kidney: A Rare Case. Cureus 13(11): e19908. doi:10.7759/cureus.19908
  25. Alali A A, Baqais M O, Albishi F M, et al. (November 28, 2021) Superior Mesenteric Artery Thrombosis Following Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia. Cureus 13(11): e19954. doi:10.7759/cureus.19954
  26. Aldawsari M, Alotaibi B, Hashim O S, et al. (November 28, 2021) Fahr Disease: A Rare Cause of First-Time Seizure in the Emergency Department. Cureus 13(11): e19965. doi:10.7759/cureus.19965
  27. Aldahhas R A, Alotaibi M, Albishi S, et al. (November 29, 2021) Celiac Artery Compression Syndrome: A Rare Cause of Abdominal Angina. Cureus 13(11): e20011. doi:10.7759/cureus.20011
  28. Alqarni M A, Kutubkhana R H, Alhosami S M, et al. (December 02, 2021) Vesicourachal Diverticulum: A Rare Cause of Recurrent Urinary Tract Infections. Cureus 13(12): e20118. doi:10.7759/cureus.20118
  29. Alzarie M F, Alhaddab A A, Aljafar F A, et al. (December 02, 2021) Lipoma of the Pancreas: A Rare Incidental Tumor. Cureus 13(12): e20122. doi:10.7759/cureus.20122
  30. Alzahrani T S, Alharbi H, Al Homoudi I, et al. (December 03, 2021) Mesenteric Panniculitis: A Rare Condition in a Patient With Rheumatoid Arthritis. Cureus 13(12): e20136. doi:10.7759/cureus.20136
  31. Khafaji R A, Ghandourah H S, Altamimi K, et al. (December 05, 2021) Epiploic Appendagitis Clinically Masquerading as an Acute Diverticulitis. Cureus 13(12): e20188. doi:10.7759/cureus.20188
  32. Alhusayni S A, Alshammari H, Althomali A, et al. (December 06, 2021) Emphysematous Cystitis: A Radiological Diagnosis of Potentially Life-Threatening Infection. Cureus 13(12): e20201. doi:10.7759/cureus.20201
  33. Alsuwayj A H, Al Nasser A H, Al Dehailan M, et al. (December 10, 2021) Giant Traumatic Diaphragmatic Hernia: A Report of Delayed Presentation. Cureus 13(12): e20315. doi:10.7759/cureus.20315
  34. Alshehri A O, Aljuhani T S, Alotaibi S S, et al. (December 10, 2021) Colonic Gallstone Ileus: A Rare Etiology of Large Bowel Obstruction. Cureus 13(12): e20338. doi:10.7759/cureus.20338
  35. Mohamed F Y, Alharbi Y H, Almutairi M N, et al. (December 11, 2021) Abdominal Cocoon: A Rare Complication of Peritoneal Dialysis in Chronic Kidney Disease. Cureus 13(12): e20341. doi:10.7759/cureus.20341
  36. Alqahtani S A, Alghamdi A M, Babader R A, et al. (December 13, 2021) Tracheal Bronchus: A Rare Etiology of Recurrent Pneumonia in Children. Cureus 13(12): e20378. doi:10.7759/cureus.20378
  37. Gohal S O, Alally A A, Alhonaizil A I, et al. (December 15, 2021) Giant Unruptured Internal Carotid Artery Aneurysm. Cureus 13(12): e20423. doi:10.7759/cureus.20423
  38. Alfarra K S, Aldhamer A A, Aldubaib H S, et al. (December 15, 2021) Pure Uterine Lipoma: A Report of a Rare Entity. Cureus 13(12): e20444. doi:10.7759/cureus.20444
  39. Alshahrani A, Alotaibi N A, Alzahrani F K, et al. (December 18, 2021) Intussusception in Adults: A Rare Etiology of Small Intestinal Obstruction. Cureus 13(12): e20502. doi:10.7759/cureus.20502
  40. Alfaraj A S, Almohamad A A, Alqabbani N S, et al. (December 24, 2021) Colonic Angiolipoma: An Extremely Rare Tumor Clinically Masquerading as Acute Appendicitis. Cureus 13(12): e20659. doi:10.7759/cureus.20659
  41. Gohal S O, Alsubhi M, Alharbi A, et al. (December 25, 2021) Lemierre’s Syndrome: A Case of Life-Threatening Infection From Family Medicine Practice. Cureus 13(12): e20684. doi:10.7759/cureus.20684
  42. Aldubaikhi A, Albeabe S A, Alfaraj M, et al. (January 06, 2022) Urinary Bladder Hernia: A Rare Cause of Urinary Frequency. Cureus 14(1): e20993. doi:10.7759/cureus.20993
  43. Alrasheed S M, Alluqmani M F, Almoallem H, et al. (January 09, 2022) Lymphangioma: A Rare Benign Cystic Pancreatic Lesion. Cureus 14(1): e21056. doi:10.7759/cureus.21056
  44. Alobaidi A, Alfaran A, Algazwi H H, et al. (January 11, 2022) Eagle Syndrome: A Rare Cause of Stroke in a Young Patient. Cureus 14(1): e21102. doi:10.7759/cureus.21102
  45. Alotaibi A A, Albaqami F S, Almushayqih A K, et al. (January 11, 2022) Large Pleural Lipoma Manifesting With Chronic Shoulder Pain. Cureus 14(1): e21113. doi:10.7759/cureus.21113
  46. Aldosari D M, Alaboon N K, Mojammami M Y, et al. (January 11, 2022) Inguinal Hernia Containing an Inflamed Appendix: A Case of Amyand Hernia. Cureus 14(1): e21121. doi:10.7759/cureus.21121
  47. Yusuf M H, Alharthi A, Alahmari S, et al. (January 11, 2022) Hemichorea: A Rare Neurological Complication of Diabetes Mellitus. Cureus 14(1): e21131. doi:10.7759/cureus.21131
  48. Aljuaid K, Iskandar M N, Almalki A A, et al. (January 11, 2022) Unicentric Castleman Disease With Systemic Symptoms: A Rare Case From Family Practice. Cureus 14(1): e21132. doi:10.7759/cureus.21132
  49. Alnooh A M, Al Furaikh B F, Alaithan M, et al. (January 11, 2022) Intraosseous Calcaneal Lipoma Misdiagnosed as Plantar Fasciitis: An Orthopedic Case From Family Practice. Cureus 14(1): e21136. doi:10.7759/cureus.21136
  50. Alyousef I A, Alsaileek A, Alabdulsalam M A, et al. (January 17, 2022) Mesenteric Panniculitis and COVID-19: A Rare Association. Cureus 14(1): e21314. doi:10.7759/cureus.21314
  51. Almutlaq M I, Almutairi A S, Alsadiq A M, et al. (January 17, 2022) Bilateral Elastofibroma Dorsi: A Case From General Practice. Cureus 14(1): e21315. doi:10.7759/cureus.21315
  52. Gohal S O, Alradadi S S, Althomali A, et al. (January 18, 2022) A Rare Case of Solitary Schwannoma of Submandibular Gland. Cureus 14(1): e21373. doi:10.7759/cureus.21373
  53. Alammari R K, Alhessan A A, Alturki A A, et al. (January 19, 2022) Xanthogranulomatous Cholecystitis: A Rare Variant of Chronic Cholecystitis. Cureus 14(1): e21400. doi:10.7759/cureus.21400
  54. Ghazwani S M, Alzaki E S, Fadhel A M, et al. (January 19, 2022) Sylvian Fissure Lipoma: An Unusual Etiology of Seizures in Adults. Cureus 14(1): e21407. doi:10.7759/cureus.21407
  55. Barnawi R M, Alsulami T A, Alzahrani W A, et al. (January 19, 2022) Extensive Pulmonary Embolism Following Mild COVID-19 Pneumonia. Cureus 14(1): e21436. doi:10.7759/cureus.21436
  56. Aldandan N S, Al Mutairi A N, Almutairi T H, et al. (January 22, 2022) Intracranial Osteoma: Unusual Etiology of Chronic Daily Headaches. Cureus 14(1): e21488. doi:10.7759/cureus.21488

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, subscribe to our free daily digest or paid weekly update, follow 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.

Posted by in cureus, saudi arabia

Permalink

31May / 2022

Cornell food marketing researcher who retired after misconduct finding is publishing again

Brian Wansink, the food marketing researcher who retired from Cornell in 2019 after the university found that he had committed academic misconduct, has published two new papers.  The articles, in Cureus and the International Journal of Community Medicine and Public Health, appear to use data that are at least a decade old. Wansink’s only coauthor … Continue reading Cornell food marketing researcher who retired after misconduct finding is publishing again

Posted by in cureus

Permalink

29Apr / 2022

Journal issues 55 expressions of concern at once

The journal Cureus has issued expressions of concern for a whopping 55 papers whose authorship has come into question.  The articles, including a couple like this one on COVID-19, were apparently submitted as part of an effort by Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, in Saudi Arabia, to pad the publishing resumes of its medical students … Continue reading Journal issues 55 expressions of concern at once

Posted by in cureus, expression of concern

Permalink

12Apr / 2022

Is a “Wall of Shame” a good idea for journals?

Today, the journal Cureus — which is no stranger to Retraction Watch — unveiled what they are calling a “Wall of Shame,” which “highlights authors and reviewers who have committed egregious ethical violations as well as the institutions that enabled them.” Over the years, we’ve heard various arguments about journals going public with a list … Continue reading Is a “Wall of Shame” a good idea for journals?

Posted by in cureus

Permalink

30Mar / 2022

Firing, publishing ban, 15 retractions for author who ‘defrauded’ co-authors in pay-to-publish scheme

Cureus has retracted 15 papers, including three on Covid-19, after concluding that the articles were produced in a scheme by a researcher in Pakistan who charged his co-authors to join the manuscripts, lied about the ethics approval for the studies and may have fabricated data.   The journal says Rahil Barkat, who already had lost a … Continue reading Firing, publishing ban, 15 retractions for author who ‘defrauded’ co-authors in pay-to-publish scheme

Posted by in cureus

Permalink

01Feb / 2022

‘Amateur bullshit’ is the price to pay for democratizing scholarly publishing, says editor

A case of author’s remorse immediately after publication of her paper has the editor of the journal calling “bullshit” on the decision to retract the work.  The paper, “Stopping the Revolving Door: Reducing 30-Day Psychiatric Readmissions With Post-discharge Telephone Calls,” was written by a trio of authors from AtlantiCare Regional Medical Center, in southern New … Continue reading ‘Amateur bullshit’ is the price to pay for democratizing scholarly publishing, says editor

Posted by in cureus

Permalink

20Sep / 2021

Authors of a case report on COVID-19 in a prisoner say they ‘are unsatisfied with the quality of [their] work’

The authors of a 2020 case study of COVID-19 have retracted the work because they were “unsatisfied with the quality” of the work. Nor, judging from the retraction notice, should they — or the journal that published the report — be.  The article was titled “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection Mimicking as … Continue reading Authors of a case report on COVID-19 in a prisoner say they ‘are unsatisfied with the quality of [their] work’

Posted by in cureus

Permalink