All articles tagged with #retraction
A controversial 2024 BMJ Public Health study claiming excess mortality linked to COVID responses and vaccine-associated adverse events was retracted for misinformation and methodological flaws after investigations found data cherry-picking and an imbalanced discussion, a move that undermines the study’s use by vaccine skeptics.
BMJ Public Health pulled a May 2024 paper linking COVID-19 vaccines to excess mortality after an institutional investigation found misinterpretation and misinformation in the discussion; the retraction followed prior expressions of concern and a probe by the Princess Máxima Center in the Netherlands, which cited carelessness and questionable literature usage by two authors, while the authors disputed the decision. The paper, which used the Our World in Data and World Mortality Dataset, had already attracted media attention and a Senate hearing, with lead author Mostert resigning amid the controversy.
A Princeton sophomore, Rishika Porandla, retracted her high-school paper on PVC biodegradability after uncovering two methodological errors during replication; Wiley’s Macromolecular Materials and Engineering retracted it in May, highlighting her honesty and scientific integrity. Porandla plans a corrected, more rigorous follow-up manuscript, turning the retraction into a starting point for a stronger study.
Retraction reveals the prior post misread the Apple App Store rejection: the app in question was Asterly, an astrology app (with Tarot), not Dark Hours’ astronomy content; Apple’s rejection was correct, the confusion arose from naming and edits, and the author apologizes and references Apple’s 4.3(b) guidelines.
A Journal of Experimental Medicine paper on breast cancer, tied to Ohio State University findings of data manipulation, was retracted after a decade of scrutiny spurred by a whistleblower who first flagged issues in 2016. The retraction cites falsified data in key figures, following earlier corrections and an expression of concern, and comes amid ongoing disputes over how the case was handled and what was actually verified. The affair involves Flavia Pichiorri and Carlo Croce, with broader questions about lab oversight and journal practices in correcting faulty literature.
Retraction Watch’s weekend reads flag privacy leaks in most arXiv preprints (like passwords and GPS coordinates), note that U.S. scrutiny of foreign research influenced researchers such as George Church to decline authorship on a recent commentary, and report 28 cases of misconduct in China. The digest also surveys a broad trail of integrity issues across academia—from retractions and questionable peer review to AI-related publishing debates—complemented by the site’s expanding databases and appeals for support.
Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods invited Nested Knowledge to publish a paper detailing the AutoLit AI tool for evidence synthesis; the article appeared after an January invitation and was published in October, but a June 1 retraction cited a breach of Cochrane’s conflict-of-interest policy because authors disclosed equity in the platform and initially lacked a COI statement. Editorial oversight was acknowledged as a factor. The authors say the invitation and acceptance were in good faith and that they plan to submit the manuscript to a venue not bound by Cochrane’s COI policies. Retractions over COI disclosures are uncommon, but the case underscores how conflicts of interest can trigger withdrawals even for methodological/AI-focused papers.
ESPN deleted a June 18 report linking NFL defensive lineman Mike Pennel to a Dominican Republic death investigation after acknowledging errors; Pennel’s representatives provided travel and financial records showing he wasn’t in the Dominican Republic at the time, and ESPN posted an update saying Pennel had nothing to do with the case.
Nature Medicine retracted a Chinese trial that claimed morning administration of immunotherapy yielded dramatic cancer benefits, citing concerns about data integrity; the ruling undermines the reported timing advantage and leaves clinicians cautious about changing practice.
Nature Medicine has retracted a high-profile February paper detailing the results of a China-based trial on the timing of cancer therapy, a move that could energize anti-China policymakers and influence debates around immunotherapy timing.
Nature Medicine has retracted the February LungTIME-C01 trial, which claimed morning immunotherapy with chemotherapy improved outcomes in advanced NSCLC. After a four‑month investigation, editors cited design changes, protocol discrepancies, unusual data patterns, and timing-related issues—leading to loss of confidence in the results. While experts urged replication, mid-trial changes and data concerns undermine the claim that time-of-day governs outcomes until independent validation is achieved. The authors either agreed with the retraction or did not respond to comment.
A 16-year-old study claiming that infant hepatitis B vaccination increases autism risk has been retracted for fundamental methodological flaws, including too few autism cases (31) and overstated causality. The authors dispute the withdrawal, and the paper had previously been cited in CDC/ACIP discussions, influencing vaccine-safety reviews before the retraction was issued.
Elsevier has retracted a 2021 Toxicology Reports study by Neil Z. Miller that claimed most Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) cases followed vaccination, citing serious methodological flaws in using VAERS data to infer causality and potential public‑health risk. The Editor-in-Chief removed the paper after concerns about the analysis were deemed unresolved, despite Miller’s opposition. The incident adds to a pattern of VAERS-based retractions; VAERS is intended for signal generation rather than establishing causality. A PDF with a “removed” watermark remained visible due to a publishing error.
A 2025 study published in JACC Advances that claimed ketogenic diets don’t promote arterial plaque buildup has been retracted after concerns about selective reporting, questionable control groups, and data anomalies; critics described the authors as social‑media influencers, and coauthor Nicholas Norwitz says they requested the retraction after a deeper analysis revealed anomalies. Retraction Watch published a detailed postmortem, while the authors have posted a reanalysis and continue keto research.
A 2025 paper in JACC: Advances claiming the ketogenic diet does not promote arterial plaque formation has been retracted after widespread critique of methods, data access, and potential conflicts of interest; the journal said the errors were too significant to fix with a corrigendum, and independent reanalyses raised further concerns, fueling ongoing debate about nutrition science and disclosure practices.