🕷️ Crawler Inspector

URL Lookup

Direct Parameter Lookup

Raw Queries and Responses

1. Shard Calculation

Query:

Response:

Calculated Shard: 188 (from laksa052)

2. Crawled Status Check

Query:

curl -X POST \
  'http://laksa188.int.ahrefs:8124/' \
  -H 'Content-Type: text/plain' \
  -H 'X-ClickHouse-Database: crawler3' \
  -H 'Authorization: Basic YXBpOg==' \
  -d 'SELECT getAhrefsURLFromUnparsed(src_unparsed) AS found_url, ifNull(toUnixTimestamp(download_stamp), 0) AS crawl_time, ifNull(toUnixTimestamp(props_url_first_seen), 0) AS first_indexed_time, download_http_code AS http_code, src_unparsed AS src_unparsed, src_root_hash AS src_root_hash, history_drop_reason AS history_drop_reason, meta_title AS meta_title, meta_descriptions AS meta_descriptions, attrs_boilerpipe_text AS attrs_boilerpipe_text, attrs_markdown AS attrs_markdown, attrs_readable_markdown AS attrs_readable_markdown, meta_canonical AS meta_canonical FROM crawler3.page_info_local FINAL PREWHERE (src_root_hash, src_unparsed) IN ((getAhrefsRootHashFromUnparsed(getAhrefsUnparsedNoserviceFromURL(\'https://retractionwatch.com/\')), getAhrefsUnparsedNoserviceFromURL(\'https://retractionwatch.com/\'))) FORMAT JSONEachRow'

Response:

{"found_url":"https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/","crawl_time":1775886170,"first_indexed_time":1477420415,"http_code":200,"src_unparsed":"com,retractionwatch!\/ s443","src_root_hash":"7032180137933625188","history_drop_reason":null,"meta_title":"Retraction Watch – Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process","meta_descriptions":["Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process"],"attrs_boilerpipe_text":"Public comment is\ninvited\nthrough April 17, 2026.\nA Canadian panel is proposing several changes to its guidelines for responsible conduct of research, including a provision that effectively removes any statute of limitations on investigations into potential misconduct. \nThe\nproposed revisions\n, from the Canadian Panel on Responsible Conduct of Research (PRCR), are up for public comment until April 17 and have not been made official. The PRCR is an interdisciplinary review and advisory body to Canada’s three federal research funding agencies: the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. \nContinue reading\nCanadian panel seeks to add more teeth to research oversight\nMark Barnes (courtesy of Ropes and Gray LLC)\nIn an\neditorial published today\nin\nScience\n, Michael Lauer and Mark Barnes call for greater transparency in investigations of scientific misconduct with an aim toward making sure prospective academic employers know of applicants’ past misdeeds. As\nwe’ve reported\n, in the absence of transparency around findings of misconduct, some universities have discovered too late they hired someone who has turned out to be a serial offender.\nLauer, who served as Deputy Director for Extramural Research at the National Institutes of Health from 2015-2025, and Barnes, a partner at Ropes and Gray LLC in Boston who has served as acting research integrity officer at several U.S. institutions, propose a tracking system similar to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB). That database logs adverse actions and malpractice payments as a way to inform decisions about individual physicians by hospitals. As Lauer and Barnes note, federal law “requires a hospital to query the NPDB whenever it is considering a new applicant for medical privileges, as well as to conduct repeat queries every 2 years to make sure information on staff is up to date.” We asked Barnes to elaborate on the ideas presented in the op-ed. (He notes he is speaking only for himself here.)\nRetraction Watch:\nYou write in your op-ed universities may avoid sharing personal information — presumably including results of misconduct investigations — for fear of legal claims of defamation or violations of privacy. Are those fears valid? \nContinue reading\nCould a national database of scientific misconduct rulings stop repeat offenders?\nAs the publishing community debates the merits of\nnaming sleuths in retraction or correction notices\n, one journal did so without the sleuth’s permission — by publishing an email from the authors naming her as the correction notice. \nThe sleuth calls it “ethical editorial malpractice.” The publisher says it was an “administrative error.” After Retraction Watch reached out for comment, the journal removed the text of the email from the correction notice. \nThe paper\n, on trends in chronic kidney disease in people with lupus, appeared in\nBMC Nephrology\nin August.\nContinue reading\nA journal named a sleuth in a correction. The sleuth says that was ‘ethical editorial malpractice’\nWolters Kluwer global headquarters in the Netherlands\nThe Dutch publisher Wolters Kluwer has scrapped some of its citation and study-registration requirements at a top-ranked surgery journal founded by the U.K. plastic surgeon Riaz Agha, Retraction Watch has learned.\nThe move follows our investigation last month that found\nmandatory citation of reporting guidelines\ndeveloped by Agha and published in the\nInternational Journal of Surgery\n(\nIJS\n) had inflated the impact factor of the open-access title, making it more attractive to authors and readers.\nA blanket requirement to register all human studies before manuscript submission, contrary to recommendations from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, appeared to serve another of Agha’s business interests:\na paid research registry\nhe founded in 2015.\nContinue reading\nPublisher changes citation, registration policies following Retraction Watch investigation\nPexels\nMarkus Englund, a software developer and sleuth based in the Netherlands, first hit paydirt with invasive plant species in China\n.\nAfter having scanned 12 other published scientific datasets with his novel detection software with no results, he\ncame across\none showing something suspicious: rows and rows of measurements of plant roots repeated across entirely different species. \n“I was really excited,” he said in a recent call with Retraction Watch. “I couldn’t think of any innocent explanation for why that would be the case.” \nEnglund had built a tool dedicated to “purging” fabricated data by identifying “impossible” data in spreadsheets available on open repositories, according to\nScience Detective\n, his site about the initiative. From his initial review, he has found 18 datasets containing duplicated values that are possibly serious enough to need correcting — including one from an influential paper on Parkinson’s disease, as\nThe Transmitter\nrecently\nreported\n. (Retraction Watch’s cofounder Ivan Oransky is that publication’s editor-in-chief.)\nContinue reading\nBloodhound code sniffs out copied-and-pasted numerical data\nIf your week flew by — we know ours did — catch up here with what you might have missed.\nThe week at Retraction Watch featured:\nA citation alert led researchers to a network of fake articles.\nBut who is benefiting\n?\nJury to decide whether Duke retaliated against researcher who\nreported sexual harassment\nBMJ retracts cardiac stem cell paper\n, removes authors months after sleuths flag data ‘mismatch’\nBiology journal ghosts researcher after\nholding paper hostage\nJudge tosses lawsuit over controversial\nPaxil ‘Study 329\n’\nGuest post: Should universities investigate questionable papers students and faculty\nwrote elsewhere\n?\nIn case you missed\nthe news\n, the\nHijacked Journal Checker\nnow has more than 400 entries. The\nRetraction Watch Database\nhas over 64,000 retractions. Our\nlist of COVID-19 retractions\nis up to 650, and our\nmass resignations list\nhas more than 50 entries. We keep tabs on all this and more. If you value this work, please consider showing your support with a tax-deductible donation. Every dollar counts.\nHere’s what was happening elsewhere (some of these items may be paywalled, metered access, or require free registration to read):\nContinue reading\nWeekend reads: Half of social science ‘doesn’t replicate’; ‘Scientific ghosts: Life after retraction’; multisensory learning paper retracted\nBe-Art\/iStock\nI am a research ethicist and often get asked by my university to investigate when potential concerns are raised about our staff or students. One example involved the recent case of the alleged paper mill and self-citation activities by\nHitler Louis and Innocent Benjamin\n. The matter raised significant questions about who within the research community has the responsibility to act when concerns like this are raised.\nRegular readers of Retraction Watch know that detecting alleged research misconduct is a haphazard affair. Frequently a university will find out about concerns after being notified by research integrity sleuths writing under pseudonyms. In this case, “Cisticola Tinniens” informed us that one of our current MSc students (Benjamin) had an unusually high number of publications for his early career stage, with some highlighted on the PubPeer website as potentially problematic.\nThe first thing we did was to check to see whether our university was named in any of these papers, as clearly institutions do have a responsibility for research attributed to our researchers or students. We found only one of the suspect papers named us directly, and since the work definitely had not occurred at our institution, it was relatively easy to get this affiliation\ncorrected almost immediately\n.\nContinue reading\nGuest post: Should universities investigate questionable papers students and faculty wrote elsewhere?\nA judge has dismissed a legal challenge aimed at forcing Elsevier to retract a long-criticized study that concluded the antidepressant Paxil was safe and effective for teens.\nThe\n2001 paper\n, published in the\nJournal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry\n(\nJAACAP\n), has faced scrutiny for more than 20 years by critics who say the study has led to unwarranted and potentially harmful prescribing of the drug to youth. As\nwe reported last October\n, the journal placed an\nexpression of concern\non the paper shortly after a lawsuit was filed by attorney George W. Murgatroyd III against the journal’s owner, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), and Elsevier, which publishes the title.\nIn\nhis complaint\n, filed in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Murgatroyd claimed the journal is violating the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) by continuing to “publish, distribute, and sell a fraudulent scientific article that contains material facts” that mislead the public and endanger adolescent mental health and safety. AACAP and Elsevier are profiting from the article by charging readers to buy access to the paper, according to the complaint. \nContinue reading\nJudge tosses lawsuit over controversial Paxil ‘Study 329’\nIn a story readers might find familiar, a researcher was asked to pay when he demanded a journal retract an article he had never seen but supposedly wrote — and the journal ghosted him when he refused. \nIn February,\nEvgenios Agathokleous\n, an environmental resources researcher at Nanjing University of Information Science & Technology in China, asked Prime Scholars’\nEuropean Journal of Experimental Biology\nto retract a\n2023 article\nthat listed him as the sole author. In his email to the journal, he said he had never seen the paper and asked the journal to remove it and publish a formal retraction notice. \nTwo days later, a Prime Scholars representative named Nina responded, telling Agathokleous “your article has already been successfully published in our journal in accordance with the company’s publication norms and policies.” Nina then asked Agathokleous to pay 519 euros, the equivalent of roughly $600, which they said “covers the costs associated with publication handling, indexing preparation, and database maintenance.”\nContinue reading\nBiology journal ghosts researcher after holding paper hostage \nThe BMJ\nhas retracted a paper on stem cell therapy for heart failure after\nsleuths flagged the work\nfor “serious” inconsistencies in data.\nPublished in October,\nthe paper\nreported the results of a phase III clinical trial of more than 400 patients in Shiraz, Iran, looking at whether stem cell therapy lowers the risk of heart failure after a heart attack. The journal announced the results in a\npress release\n, and news of the findings appeared in several outlets.\nNew Scientist\ncalled the study the “strongest evidence yet that stem cells can help the heart repair itself.”\nA week after the study was published, sleuths\ntook to PubPeer\nto point out inconsistencies between the data reported in the article and the\ndataset\nuploaded with it. The concerns included a “curious repeating pattern” of records in the dataset and a high number of integers for the height and weight of patients. \nContinue reading\nBMJ retracts cardiac stem cell paper, removes authors months after sleuths flag data ‘mismatch’","attrs_markdown":"[Skip to content](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/#content)\n\n# [Retraction Watch](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/)\nTracking retractions as a window into the scientific process\n\nMenu and widgets\n\n## Get Retraction Watch in your inbox\nProcessing…\n\nSuccess! You're on the list.\n\nWhoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.\n\n[Support Retraction Watch](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/support-retraction-watch\/)\n\n## Retraction Watch Lists\n- [The Retraction Watch Leaderboard](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/the-retraction-watch-leaderboard\/)\n- [Retractions by Nobel Prize winners](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/retractions-by-nobel-prize-winners\/)\n- [Top 10 most highly cited retracted papers](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/the-retraction-watch-leaderboard\/top-10-most-highly-cited-retracted-papers\/)\n- [The Retraction Watch Mass Resignations List](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/the-retraction-watch-mass-resignations-list\/)\n- [The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/the-retraction-watch-hijacked-journal-checker\/)\n- [Papers and peer reviews with evidence of ChatGPT writing](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/papers-and-peer-reviews-with-evidence-of-chatgpt-writing\/)\n- [Retracted coronavirus (COVID-19) papers](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/retracted-coronavirus-covid-19-papers\/)\n## Search Retraction Watch\n## Retraction Watch Database\n- [Database User Guide](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/retraction-watch-database-user-guide\/)\n- [View the Database](https:\/\/gitlab.com\/crossref\/retraction-watch-data)\n\n## About Retraction Watch\n- [Meet the Retraction Watch staff](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/meet-the-retraction-watch-staff\/)\n  - [About Adam Marcus](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/meet-the-retraction-watch-staff\/about-adam-marcus\/)\n  - [About Ivan Oransky](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/meet-the-retraction-watch-staff\/about\/)\n- [Job opportunities](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/job-opportunities\/)\n- [Retraction Watch Research Accountability Reporting Fellowship](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/fellowship\/)\n- [Retraction Watch journalism internship](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/internship\/)\n- [The Center for Scientific Integrity](https:\/\/centerforscientificintegrity.org\/)\n- [The Ctrl-Z Award](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/ctrl-z-award\/)\n- [The Retraction Watch FAQ, including comments policy](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/the-retraction-watch-faq\/)\n- [Papers that cite Retraction Watch](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/papers-that-cite-retraction-watch\/)\n- [What people are saying about Retraction Watch](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/what-people-are-saying-about-retraction-watch\/)\n- [Invite us to speak](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/invite-us-to-speak\/)\n\n## Recent Comments\n- [Edward R Ringel](http:\/\/www.electricmammal.com\/) on [Could a national database of scientific misconduct rulings stop repeat offenders?](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/09\/could-a-national-database-of-scientific-misconduct-rulings-stop-repeat-offenders\/#comment-2379034)\n- [Edward R Ringel](http:\/\/www.electricmammal.com\/) on [Could a national database of scientific misconduct rulings stop repeat offenders?](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/09\/could-a-national-database-of-scientific-misconduct-rulings-stop-repeat-offenders\/#comment-2379019)\n- Guititio on [Could a national database of scientific misconduct rulings stop repeat offenders?](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/09\/could-a-national-database-of-scientific-misconduct-rulings-stop-repeat-offenders\/#comment-2379008)\n\n## Archives\nArchives\n\n## [Canadian panel seeks to add more teeth to research oversight](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/10\/canadian-panel-seeks-to-add-more-teeth-to-research-oversight\/)\n[![](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/RCR-framework-proposed-changes-main-1024x576.png)](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/RCR-framework-proposed-changes-main.png)\n\n*Public comment is [invited](https:\/\/rcr.ethics.gc.ca\/eng\/consultations_proposed-updates_mise-a-jour-proposee_framework-cadre_2021.html) through April 17, 2026.*\n\nA Canadian panel is proposing several changes to its guidelines for responsible conduct of research, including a provision that effectively removes any statute of limitations on investigations into potential misconduct.\n\nThe [proposed revisions](https:\/\/rcr.ethics.gc.ca\/eng\/consultations_proposed-updates_mise-a-jour-proposee_framework-cadre_2021.html), from the Canadian Panel on Responsible Conduct of Research (PRCR), are up for public comment until April 17 and have not been made official. The PRCR is an interdisciplinary review and advisory body to Canada’s three federal research funding agencies: the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.\n\n[Continue reading Canadian panel seeks to add more teeth to research oversight](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/10\/canadian-panel-seeks-to-add-more-teeth-to-research-oversight\/#more-134586)\n\n### Share this:\n- [Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email](mailto:?subject=%5BShared%20Post%5D%20Canadian%20panel%20seeks%20to%20add%20more%20teeth%20to%20research%20oversight&body=https%3A%2F%2Fretractionwatch.com%2F2026%2F04%2F10%2Fcanadian-panel-seeks-to-add-more-teeth-to-research-oversight%2F&share=email&nb=1)\n- [Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/10\/canadian-panel-seeks-to-add-more-teeth-to-research-oversight\/?share=bluesky&nb=1)\n- [Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/10\/canadian-panel-seeks-to-add-more-teeth-to-research-oversight\/?share=linkedin&nb=1)\n- [Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/10\/canadian-panel-seeks-to-add-more-teeth-to-research-oversight\/?share=mastodon&nb=1)\n- [Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/10\/canadian-panel-seeks-to-add-more-teeth-to-research-oversight\/?share=facebook&nb=1)\n- [Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/10\/canadian-panel-seeks-to-add-more-teeth-to-research-oversight\/?share=twitter&nb=1)\n\nPosted on\n\n[April 10, 2026](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/10\/canadian-panel-seeks-to-add-more-teeth-to-research-oversight\/)\n\nAuthor [Retraction Watch Staff](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/author\/staff\/)Categories [canada](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/category\/by-country\/canada\/)[Leave a comment on Canadian panel seeks to add more teeth to research oversight](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/10\/canadian-panel-seeks-to-add-more-teeth-to-research-oversight\/#respond)\n\n## [Could a national database of scientific misconduct rulings stop repeat offenders?](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/09\/could-a-national-database-of-scientific-misconduct-rulings-stop-repeat-offenders\/)\n[![](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Photo-Mark-Barnes-Ropes-Gray-Health-Care-Partner.jpg)](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Photo-Mark-Barnes-Ropes-Gray-Health-Care-Partner.jpg)\n\n*Mark Barnes (courtesy of Ropes and Gray LLC)*\n\nIn an [editorial published today](https:\/\/www.science.org\/doi\/10.1126\/science.aeh7187) in *Science*, Michael Lauer and Mark Barnes call for greater transparency in investigations of scientific misconduct with an aim toward making sure prospective academic employers know of applicants’ past misdeeds. As [we’ve reported](https:\/\/undark.org\/2018\/05\/14\/scientific-fraud-academic-fraud-universities\/), in the absence of transparency around findings of misconduct, some universities have discovered too late they hired someone who has turned out to be a serial offender.\n\nLauer, who served as Deputy Director for Extramural Research at the National Institutes of Health from 2015-2025, and Barnes, a partner at Ropes and Gray LLC in Boston who has served as acting research integrity officer at several U.S. institutions, propose a tracking system similar to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB). That database logs adverse actions and malpractice payments as a way to inform decisions about individual physicians by hospitals. As Lauer and Barnes note, federal law “requires a hospital to query the NPDB whenever it is considering a new applicant for medical privileges, as well as to conduct repeat queries every 2 years to make sure information on staff is up to date.” We asked Barnes to elaborate on the ideas presented in the op-ed. (He notes he is speaking only for himself here.)\n\n**Retraction Watch:** You write in your op-ed universities may avoid sharing personal information — presumably including results of misconduct investigations — for fear of legal claims of defamation or violations of privacy. Are those fears valid?\n\n[Continue reading Could a national database of scientific misconduct rulings stop repeat offenders?](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/09\/could-a-national-database-of-scientific-misconduct-rulings-stop-repeat-offenders\/#more-134576)\n\n### Share this:\n- [Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email](mailto:?subject=%5BShared%20Post%5D%20Could%20a%20national%20database%20of%20scientific%20misconduct%20rulings%20stop%20repeat%20offenders%3F&body=https%3A%2F%2Fretractionwatch.com%2F2026%2F04%2F09%2Fcould-a-national-database-of-scientific-misconduct-rulings-stop-repeat-offenders%2F&share=email&nb=1)\n- [Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/09\/could-a-national-database-of-scientific-misconduct-rulings-stop-repeat-offenders\/?share=bluesky&nb=1)\n- [Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/09\/could-a-national-database-of-scientific-misconduct-rulings-stop-repeat-offenders\/?share=linkedin&nb=1)\n- [Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/09\/could-a-national-database-of-scientific-misconduct-rulings-stop-repeat-offenders\/?share=mastodon&nb=1)\n- [Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/09\/could-a-national-database-of-scientific-misconduct-rulings-stop-repeat-offenders\/?share=facebook&nb=1)\n- [Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/09\/could-a-national-database-of-scientific-misconduct-rulings-stop-repeat-offenders\/?share=twitter&nb=1)\n\nPosted on\n\n[April 9, 2026April 9, 2026](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/09\/could-a-national-database-of-scientific-misconduct-rulings-stop-repeat-offenders\/)\n\nAuthor [Retraction Watch Staff](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/author\/staff\/)Categories [AAAS](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/category\/by-publisher\/aaas\/), [misconduct investigations](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/category\/by-reason-for-retraction\/misconduct-investigations\/), [science (journal)](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/category\/by-journal\/science-journal\/), [united states](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/category\/by-country\/united-states\/)[6 Comments on Could a national database of scientific misconduct rulings stop repeat offenders?](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/09\/could-a-national-database-of-scientific-misconduct-rulings-stop-repeat-offenders\/#comments)\n\n## [A journal named a sleuth in a correction. The sleuth says that was ‘ethical editorial malpractice’](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/08\/bmc-nephrology-journal-named-sleuth-correction-error\/)\n[![](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/bmc_nephrology.jpg)](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/bmc_nephrology.jpg)\n\nAs the publishing community debates the merits of [naming sleuths in retraction or correction notices](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2025\/07\/30\/noticed-sleuths-are-starting-to-get-credit-for-retractions\/), one journal did so without the sleuth’s permission — by publishing an email from the authors naming her as the correction notice.\n\nThe sleuth calls it “ethical editorial malpractice.” The publisher says it was an “administrative error.” After Retraction Watch reached out for comment, the journal removed the text of the email from the correction notice.\n\n[The paper](https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1186\/s12882-025-04394-8), on trends in chronic kidney disease in people with lupus, appeared in *BMC Nephrology* in August.\n\n[Continue reading A journal named a sleuth in a correction. The sleuth says that was ‘ethical editorial malpractice’](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/08\/bmc-nephrology-journal-named-sleuth-correction-error\/#more-134558)\n\n### Share this:\n- [Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email](mailto:?subject=%5BShared%20Post%5D%20A%20journal%20named%20a%20sleuth%20in%20a%20correction.%20The%20sleuth%20says%20that%20was%20%E2%80%98ethical%20editorial%20malpractice%E2%80%99&body=https%3A%2F%2Fretractionwatch.com%2F2026%2F04%2F08%2Fbmc-nephrology-journal-named-sleuth-correction-error%2F&share=email&nb=1)\n- [Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/08\/bmc-nephrology-journal-named-sleuth-correction-error\/?share=bluesky&nb=1)\n- [Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/08\/bmc-nephrology-journal-named-sleuth-correction-error\/?share=linkedin&nb=1)\n- [Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/08\/bmc-nephrology-journal-named-sleuth-correction-error\/?share=mastodon&nb=1)\n- [Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/08\/bmc-nephrology-journal-named-sleuth-correction-error\/?share=facebook&nb=1)\n- [Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/08\/bmc-nephrology-journal-named-sleuth-correction-error\/?share=twitter&nb=1)\n\nPosted on\n\n[April 8, 2026April 8, 2026](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/08\/bmc-nephrology-journal-named-sleuth-correction-error\/)\n\nAuthor [Avery Orrall](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/author\/avery-orrall\/)Categories [corrections](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/category\/corrections\/), [publisher error](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/category\/by-reason-for-retraction\/publisher-error\/)[2 Comments on A journal named a sleuth in a correction. The sleuth says that was ‘ethical editorial malpractice’](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/08\/bmc-nephrology-journal-named-sleuth-correction-error\/#comments)\n\n## [Publisher changes citation, registration policies following Retraction Watch investigation](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/07\/wolters-kluwer-international-journal-surgery-changes-citation-registration-policies\/)\n[![](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/wolters-kluwer-hq-the-netherlands-2017-hyr-1024x576.jpg)](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/wolters-kluwer-hq-the-netherlands-2017-hyr.jpg)\n\n*Wolters Kluwer global headquarters in the Netherlands*\n\nThe Dutch publisher Wolters Kluwer has scrapped some of its citation and study-registration requirements at a top-ranked surgery journal founded by the U.K. plastic surgeon Riaz Agha, Retraction Watch has learned.\n\nThe move follows our investigation last month that found [mandatory citation of reporting guidelines](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/03\/12\/riaz-agha-international-journal-surgery-research-registry-wolters-kluwer\/) developed by Agha and published in the *International Journal of Surgery* (*IJS*) had inflated the impact factor of the open-access title, making it more attractive to authors and readers.\n\nA blanket requirement to register all human studies before manuscript submission, contrary to recommendations from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, appeared to serve another of Agha’s business interests: [a paid research registry](https:\/\/www.researchregistry.com\/) he founded in 2015.\n\n[Continue reading Publisher changes citation, registration policies following Retraction Watch investigation](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/07\/wolters-kluwer-international-journal-surgery-changes-citation-registration-policies\/#more-134551)\n\n### Share this:\n- [Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email](mailto:?subject=%5BShared%20Post%5D%20Publisher%20changes%20citation%2C%20registration%20policies%20following%20Retraction%20Watch%20investigation&body=https%3A%2F%2Fretractionwatch.com%2F2026%2F04%2F07%2Fwolters-kluwer-international-journal-surgery-changes-citation-registration-policies%2F&share=email&nb=1)\n- [Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/07\/wolters-kluwer-international-journal-surgery-changes-citation-registration-policies\/?share=bluesky&nb=1)\n- [Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/07\/wolters-kluwer-international-journal-surgery-changes-citation-registration-policies\/?share=linkedin&nb=1)\n- [Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/07\/wolters-kluwer-international-journal-surgery-changes-citation-registration-policies\/?share=mastodon&nb=1)\n- [Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/07\/wolters-kluwer-international-journal-surgery-changes-citation-registration-policies\/?share=facebook&nb=1)\n- [Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/07\/wolters-kluwer-international-journal-surgery-changes-citation-registration-policies\/?share=twitter&nb=1)\n\nPosted on\n\n[April 7, 2026](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/07\/wolters-kluwer-international-journal-surgery-changes-citation-registration-policies\/)\n\nAuthor [Frederik Joelving](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/author\/frederik-joelving\/)Categories [int j surgery](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/category\/by-journal\/int-j-surgery\/), [wolters kluwer lippincott](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/category\/by-publisher\/wolters-kluwer-lippincott\/)[1 Comment on Publisher changes citation, registration policies following Retraction Watch investigation](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/07\/wolters-kluwer-international-journal-surgery-changes-citation-registration-policies\/#comments)\n\n## [Bloodhound code sniffs out copied-and-pasted numerical data](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/06\/data-duplications-errors-open-repositories-markus-englund\/)\n[![](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/pexels-rows-stadium-seats-16-9-1024x576.jpg)](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/pexels-rows-stadium-seats-16-9.jpg)\n\n*Pexels*\n\nMarkus Englund, a software developer and sleuth based in the Netherlands, first hit paydirt with invasive plant species in China*.* After having scanned 12 other published scientific datasets with his novel detection software with no results, he [came across](https:\/\/pubpeer.com\/publications\/1FF86EEED4054ECA9E7625F67F79FB) one showing something suspicious: rows and rows of measurements of plant roots repeated across entirely different species.\n\n“I was really excited,” he said in a recent call with Retraction Watch. “I couldn’t think of any innocent explanation for why that would be the case.”\n\nEnglund had built a tool dedicated to “purging” fabricated data by identifying “impossible” data in spreadsheets available on open repositories, according to [Science Detective](https:\/\/www.sciencedetective.org\/about\/), his site about the initiative. From his initial review, he has found 18 datasets containing duplicated values that are possibly serious enough to need correcting — including one from an influential paper on Parkinson’s disease, as *The Transmitter* recently [reported](https:\/\/www.thetransmitter.org\/academia\/data-duplications-flagged-in-highly-cited-gut-brain-studies\/). (Retraction Watch’s cofounder Ivan Oransky is that publication’s editor-in-chief.)\n\n[Continue reading Bloodhound code sniffs out copied-and-pasted numerical data](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/06\/data-duplications-errors-open-repositories-markus-englund\/#more-134534)\n\n### Share this:\n- [Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email](mailto:?subject=%5BShared%20Post%5D%20Bloodhound%20code%20sniffs%20out%20copied-and-pasted%20numerical%20data&body=https%3A%2F%2Fretractionwatch.com%2F2026%2F04%2F06%2Fdata-duplications-errors-open-repositories-markus-englund%2F&share=email&nb=1)\n- [Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/06\/data-duplications-errors-open-repositories-markus-englund\/?share=bluesky&nb=1)\n- [Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/06\/data-duplications-errors-open-repositories-markus-englund\/?share=linkedin&nb=1)\n- [Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/06\/data-duplications-errors-open-repositories-markus-englund\/?share=mastodon&nb=1)\n- [Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/06\/data-duplications-errors-open-repositories-markus-englund\/?share=facebook&nb=1)\n- [Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/06\/data-duplications-errors-open-repositories-markus-englund\/?share=twitter&nb=1)\n\nPosted on\n\n[April 6, 2026April 3, 2026](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/06\/data-duplications-errors-open-repositories-markus-englund\/)\n\nAuthor [Lori Youmshajekian](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/author\/lori-youmshajekian\/)Categories [data issues](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/category\/by-reason-for-retraction\/data-issues\/)[2 Comments on Bloodhound code sniffs out copied-and-pasted numerical data](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/06\/data-duplications-errors-open-repositories-markus-englund\/#comments)\n\n## [Weekend reads: Half of social science ‘doesn’t replicate’; ‘Scientific ghosts: Life after retraction’; multisensory learning paper retracted](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/04\/weekend-reads-half-social-science-doesnt-replicate-scientific-ghosts-multisensory-learning-paper-retracted\/)\n[![](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/rw-1024x768.jpeg)](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/rw.jpeg)\n\nIf your week flew by — we know ours did — catch up here with what you might have missed.\n\nThe week at Retraction Watch featured:\n\n- A citation alert led researchers to a network of fake articles. [But who is benefiting](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/03\/30\/fake-articles-plagiarism-preprints-arxiv-ssrn-citation-network\/)?\n- Jury to decide whether Duke retaliated against researcher who [reported sexual harassment](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/03\/31\/duke-retaliation-jury-trial-brahmajothi-mulugu-mohamed-abou-donia-sexual-harassment\/)\n- [BMJ retracts cardiac stem cell paper](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/?p=134507), removes authors months after sleuths flag data ‘mismatch’\n- Biology journal ghosts researcher after [holding paper hostage](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/01\/european-journal-experimental-biology-fee-demand-prime-scholars\/)\n- Judge tosses lawsuit over controversial [Paxil ‘Study 329](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/02\/judge-lawsuit-controversial-adolescents-paxil-study-329\/)’\n- Guest post: Should universities investigate questionable papers students and faculty [wrote elsewhere](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/03\/guest-post-should-universities-investigate-questionable-papers-students-faculty-wrote-elsewhere\/)?\n\nIn case you missed [the news](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2025\/12\/26\/retraction-watch-hijacked-journal-checker-now-has-400-entries\/), the [Hijacked Journal Checker](https:\/\/docs.google.com\/spreadsheets\/d\/1ak985WGOgGbJRJbZFanoktAN_UFeExpE\/edit?gid=5255084#gid=5255084) now has more than 400 entries. The [Retraction Watch Database](https:\/\/gitlab.com\/crossref\/retraction-watch-data) has over 64,000 retractions. Our [list of COVID-19 retractions](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/retracted-coronavirus-covid-19-papers\/) is up to 650, and our [mass resignations list](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/the-retraction-watch-mass-resignations-list\/) has more than 50 entries. We keep tabs on all this and more. If you value this work, please consider showing your support with a tax-deductible donation. Every dollar counts.\n\n[I Support Retraction Watch](https:\/\/centerforscientificintegrity.org\/support-our-work\/)\n\nHere’s what was happening elsewhere (some of these items may be paywalled, metered access, or require free registration to read):\n\n[Continue reading Weekend reads: Half of social science ‘doesn’t replicate’; ‘Scientific ghosts: Life after retraction’; multisensory learning paper retracted](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/04\/weekend-reads-half-social-science-doesnt-replicate-scientific-ghosts-multisensory-learning-paper-retracted\/#more-134540)\n\n### Share this:\n- [Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email](mailto:?subject=%5BShared%20Post%5D%20Weekend%20reads%3A%20Half%20of%20social%20science%20%E2%80%98doesn%E2%80%99t%20replicate%E2%80%99%3B%20%E2%80%98Scientific%20ghosts%3A%20Life%20after%20retraction%E2%80%99%3B%20multisensory%20learning%20paper%20retracted&body=https%3A%2F%2Fretractionwatch.com%2F2026%2F04%2F04%2Fweekend-reads-half-social-science-doesnt-replicate-scientific-ghosts-multisensory-learning-paper-retracted%2F&share=email&nb=1)\n- [Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/04\/weekend-reads-half-social-science-doesnt-replicate-scientific-ghosts-multisensory-learning-paper-retracted\/?share=bluesky&nb=1)\n- [Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/04\/weekend-reads-half-social-science-doesnt-replicate-scientific-ghosts-multisensory-learning-paper-retracted\/?share=linkedin&nb=1)\n- [Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/04\/weekend-reads-half-social-science-doesnt-replicate-scientific-ghosts-multisensory-learning-paper-retracted\/?share=mastodon&nb=1)\n- [Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/04\/weekend-reads-half-social-science-doesnt-replicate-scientific-ghosts-multisensory-learning-paper-retracted\/?share=facebook&nb=1)\n- [Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/04\/weekend-reads-half-social-science-doesnt-replicate-scientific-ghosts-multisensory-learning-paper-retracted\/?share=twitter&nb=1)\n\nPosted on\n\n[April 4, 2026April 3, 2026](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/04\/weekend-reads-half-social-science-doesnt-replicate-scientific-ghosts-multisensory-learning-paper-retracted\/)\n\nAuthor [Retraction Watch Staff](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/author\/staff\/)Categories [weekend reads](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/category\/weekend-reads\/)[3 Comments on Weekend reads: Half of social science ‘doesn’t replicate’; ‘Scientific ghosts: Life after retraction’; multisensory learning paper retracted](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/04\/weekend-reads-half-social-science-doesnt-replicate-scientific-ghosts-multisensory-learning-paper-retracted\/#comments)\n\n## [Guest post: Should universities investigate questionable papers students and faculty wrote elsewhere?](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/03\/guest-post-should-universities-investigate-questionable-papers-students-faculty-wrote-elsewhere\/)\n[![](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/magnifying-glass-computer-iStock-1147405001-1024x683.jpg)](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/magnifying-glass-computer-iStock-1147405001.jpg)\n\n*Be-Art\/iStock*\n\nI am a research ethicist and often get asked by my university to investigate when potential concerns are raised about our staff or students. One example involved the recent case of the alleged paper mill and self-citation activities by [Hitler Louis and Innocent Benjamin](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/02\/24\/chemist-hitler-louis-nigeria-retractions-image-duplication-self-citation\/). The matter raised significant questions about who within the research community has the responsibility to act when concerns like this are raised.\n\nRegular readers of Retraction Watch know that detecting alleged research misconduct is a haphazard affair. Frequently a university will find out about concerns after being notified by research integrity sleuths writing under pseudonyms. In this case, “Cisticola Tinniens” informed us that one of our current MSc students (Benjamin) had an unusually high number of publications for his early career stage, with some highlighted on the PubPeer website as potentially problematic.\n\nThe first thing we did was to check to see whether our university was named in any of these papers, as clearly institutions do have a responsibility for research attributed to our researchers or students. We found only one of the suspect papers named us directly, and since the work definitely had not occurred at our institution, it was relatively easy to get this affiliation [corrected almost immediately](https:\/\/www.pubpeer.com\/publications\/E3637FC6DBCDC05C830D5157873351#3).\n\n[Continue reading Guest post: Should universities investigate questionable papers students and faculty wrote elsewhere?](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/03\/guest-post-should-universities-investigate-questionable-papers-students-faculty-wrote-elsewhere\/#more-134494)\n\n### Share this:\n- [Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email](mailto:?subject=%5BShared%20Post%5D%20Guest%20post%3A%20Should%20universities%20investigate%20questionable%20papers%20students%20and%20faculty%20wrote%20elsewhere%3F&body=https%3A%2F%2Fretractionwatch.com%2F2026%2F04%2F03%2Fguest-post-should-universities-investigate-questionable-papers-students-faculty-wrote-elsewhere%2F&share=email&nb=1)\n- [Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/03\/guest-post-should-universities-investigate-questionable-papers-students-faculty-wrote-elsewhere\/?share=bluesky&nb=1)\n- [Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/03\/guest-post-should-universities-investigate-questionable-papers-students-faculty-wrote-elsewhere\/?share=linkedin&nb=1)\n- [Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/03\/guest-post-should-universities-investigate-questionable-papers-students-faculty-wrote-elsewhere\/?share=mastodon&nb=1)\n- [Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/03\/guest-post-should-universities-investigate-questionable-papers-students-faculty-wrote-elsewhere\/?share=facebook&nb=1)\n- [Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/03\/guest-post-should-universities-investigate-questionable-papers-students-faculty-wrote-elsewhere\/?share=twitter&nb=1)\n\nPosted on\n\n[April 3, 2026April 2, 2026](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/03\/guest-post-should-universities-investigate-questionable-papers-students-faculty-wrote-elsewhere\/)\n\nAuthor [Simon Kolstoe](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/author\/simonkolstoe\/)Categories [guest post](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/category\/guest-post\/), [misconduct investigations](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/category\/by-reason-for-retraction\/misconduct-investigations\/)[25 Comments on Guest post: Should universities investigate questionable papers students and faculty wrote elsewhere?](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/03\/guest-post-should-universities-investigate-questionable-papers-students-faculty-wrote-elsewhere\/#comments)\n\n## [Judge tosses lawsuit over controversial Paxil ‘Study 329’](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/02\/judge-lawsuit-controversial-adolescents-paxil-study-329\/)\n[![](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/study-329-motion-to-dismiss-tearaway-1024x576.png)](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/study-329-motion-to-dismiss-tearaway.png)\n\nA judge has dismissed a legal challenge aimed at forcing Elsevier to retract a long-criticized study that concluded the antidepressant Paxil was safe and effective for teens.\n\nThe [2001 paper](https:\/\/www.jaacap.org\/article\/S0890-8567\$09\$60309-9\/abstract), published in the *Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry* (*JAACAP*), has faced scrutiny for more than 20 years by critics who say the study has led to unwarranted and potentially harmful prescribing of the drug to youth. As [we reported last October](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2025\/10\/16\/controversial-paxil-study-329-earns-expression-of-concern-after-critic-sues-publisher\/), the journal placed an [expression of concern](https:\/\/www.jaacap.org\/article\/S0890-8567\$25\$02107-0\/fulltext) on the paper shortly after a lawsuit was filed by attorney George W. Murgatroyd III against the journal’s owner, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), and Elsevier, which publishes the title.\n\nIn [his complaint](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/2025-CAB-005368.pdf), filed in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Murgatroyd claimed the journal is violating the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) by continuing to “publish, distribute, and sell a fraudulent scientific article that contains material facts” that mislead the public and endanger adolescent mental health and safety. AACAP and Elsevier are profiting from the article by charging readers to buy access to the paper, according to the complaint.\n\n[Continue reading Judge tosses lawsuit over controversial Paxil ‘Study 329’](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/02\/judge-lawsuit-controversial-adolescents-paxil-study-329\/#more-134526)\n\n### Share this:\n- [Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email](mailto:?subject=%5BShared%20Post%5D%20Judge%20tosses%20lawsuit%20over%20controversial%20Paxil%20%E2%80%98Study%20329%E2%80%99&body=https%3A%2F%2Fretractionwatch.com%2F2026%2F04%2F02%2Fjudge-lawsuit-controversial-adolescents-paxil-study-329%2F&share=email&nb=1)\n- [Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/02\/judge-lawsuit-controversial-adolescents-paxil-study-329\/?share=bluesky&nb=1)\n- [Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/02\/judge-lawsuit-controversial-adolescents-paxil-study-329\/?share=linkedin&nb=1)\n- [Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/02\/judge-lawsuit-controversial-adolescents-paxil-study-329\/?share=mastodon&nb=1)\n- [Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/02\/judge-lawsuit-controversial-adolescents-paxil-study-329\/?share=facebook&nb=1)\n- [Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/02\/judge-lawsuit-controversial-adolescents-paxil-study-329\/?share=twitter&nb=1)\n\nPosted on\n\n[April 2, 2026April 2, 2026](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/02\/judge-lawsuit-controversial-adolescents-paxil-study-329\/)\n\nAuthor [Alicia Gallegos](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/author\/alicia-gallegos\/)Categories [elsevier](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/category\/by-publisher\/elsevier\/), [J Am Acad Child Adoles Psychiatry](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/category\/by-journal\/j-am-acad-child-adoles-psychiatry\/), [psychiatry](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/category\/by-subject\/clinical-study-retractions\/psychiatry-clinical-study-retractions\/)[Leave a comment on Judge tosses lawsuit over controversial Paxil ‘Study 329’](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/02\/judge-lawsuit-controversial-adolescents-paxil-study-329\/#respond)\n\n## [Biology journal ghosts researcher after holding paper hostage](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/01\/european-journal-experimental-biology-fee-demand-prime-scholars\/)\n[![](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/european-journal-of-experimental-biology-flyer.jpg)](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/european-journal-of-experimental-biology-flyer.jpg)\n\nIn a story readers might find familiar, a researcher was asked to pay when he demanded a journal retract an article he had never seen but supposedly wrote — and the journal ghosted him when he refused.\n\nIn February, [Evgenios Agathokleous](https:\/\/www.evgenios.info\/), an environmental resources researcher at Nanjing University of Information Science & Technology in China, asked Prime Scholars’ *European Journal of Experimental Biology* to retract a [2023 article](https:\/\/www.primescholars.com\/articles\/an-indepth-exploration-of-pests-used-on-plants-in-agriculture-and-horticulture-121905.html) that listed him as the sole author. In his email to the journal, he said he had never seen the paper and asked the journal to remove it and publish a formal retraction notice.\n\nTwo days later, a Prime Scholars representative named Nina responded, telling Agathokleous “your article has already been successfully published in our journal in accordance with the company’s publication norms and policies.” Nina then asked Agathokleous to pay 519 euros, the equivalent of roughly \\$600, which they said “covers the costs associated with publication handling, indexing preparation, and database maintenance.”\n\n[Continue reading Biology journal ghosts researcher after holding paper hostage](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/01\/european-journal-experimental-biology-fee-demand-prime-scholars\/#more-134514)\n\n### Share this:\n- [Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email](mailto:?subject=%5BShared%20Post%5D%20Biology%20journal%20ghosts%20researcher%20after%20holding%20paper%20hostage%C2%A0&body=https%3A%2F%2Fretractionwatch.com%2F2026%2F04%2F01%2Feuropean-journal-experimental-biology-fee-demand-prime-scholars%2F&share=email&nb=1)\n- [Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/01\/european-journal-experimental-biology-fee-demand-prime-scholars\/?share=bluesky&nb=1)\n- [Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/01\/european-journal-experimental-biology-fee-demand-prime-scholars\/?share=linkedin&nb=1)\n- [Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/01\/european-journal-experimental-biology-fee-demand-prime-scholars\/?share=mastodon&nb=1)\n- [Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/01\/european-journal-experimental-biology-fee-demand-prime-scholars\/?share=facebook&nb=1)\n- [Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/01\/european-journal-experimental-biology-fee-demand-prime-scholars\/?share=twitter&nb=1)\n\nPosted on\n\n[April 1, 2026April 2, 2026](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/01\/european-journal-experimental-biology-fee-demand-prime-scholars\/)\n\nAuthor [Avery Orrall](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/author\/avery-orrall\/)Categories [omics publishing group](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/category\/by-publisher\/omics-publishing-group\/), [refusal to pay fees](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/category\/by-reason-for-retraction\/refusal-to-pay-fees\/)[2 Comments on Biology journal ghosts researcher after holding paper hostage](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/01\/european-journal-experimental-biology-fee-demand-prime-scholars\/#comments)\n\n## [BMJ retracts cardiac stem cell paper, removes authors months after sleuths flag data ‘mismatch’](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/03\/31\/bmj-retracts-cardiac-stem-cell-paper-removes-authors-months-after-sleuths-flag-data-mismatch\/)\n[![](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/bmj-prevent-taha8-retraction_rev-1024x618.png)](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/bmj-prevent-taha8-retraction_rev.png)\n\n*The BMJ* has retracted a paper on stem cell therapy for heart failure after [sleuths flagged the work](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2025\/11\/06\/sleuths-flag-complete-mismatch-in-data-of-bmj-stem-cell-study\/) for “serious” inconsistencies in data.\n\nPublished in October, [the paper](https:\/\/www.bmj.com\/content\/391\/bmj-2024-083382) reported the results of a phase III clinical trial of more than 400 patients in Shiraz, Iran, looking at whether stem cell therapy lowers the risk of heart failure after a heart attack. The journal announced the results in a [press release](https:\/\/bmjgroup.com\/stem-cell-therapy-linked-to-lower-risk-of-heart-failure-after-a-heart-attack\/), and news of the findings appeared in several outlets. [*New Scientist*](https:\/\/www.newscientist.com\/article\/2502081-stem-cell-therapy-lowers-risk-of-heart-failure-after-a-heart-attack\/) called the study the “strongest evidence yet that stem cells can help the heart repair itself.”\n\nA week after the study was published, sleuths [took to PubPeer](https:\/\/pubpeer.com\/publications\/C08779C45DB6E407DFAC85583BE9C4#1) to point out inconsistencies between the data reported in the article and the [dataset](https:\/\/figshare.com\/articles\/dataset\/_b_PREVENT-TAHA8_study_Dataset_Prevention_of_Acute_Myocardial_Infarction-Induced_Heart_Failure_by_Intracoronary_Infusion_of_Mesenchymal_Stem_Cells_A_Phase_III_Randomized_Clinical_Trial_b_\/29375153\/2?file=55664687) uploaded with it. The concerns included a “curious repeating pattern” of records in the dataset and a high number of integers for the height and weight of patients.\n\n[Continue reading BMJ retracts cardiac stem cell paper, removes authors months after sleuths flag data ‘mismatch’](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/03\/31\/bmj-retracts-cardiac-stem-cell-paper-removes-authors-months-after-sleuths-flag-data-mismatch\/#more-134507)\n\n### Share this:\n- [Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email](mailto:?subject=%5BShared%20Post%5D%20BMJ%20retracts%20cardiac%20stem%20cell%20paper%2C%20removes%20authors%20months%20after%20sleuths%20flag%20data%20%E2%80%98mismatch%E2%80%99&body=https%3A%2F%2Fretractionwatch.com%2F2026%2F03%2F31%2Fbmj-retracts-cardiac-stem-cell-paper-removes-authors-months-after-sleuths-flag-data-mismatch%2F&share=email&nb=1)\n- [Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/03\/31\/bmj-retracts-cardiac-stem-cell-paper-removes-authors-months-after-sleuths-flag-data-mismatch\/?share=bluesky&nb=1)\n- [Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/03\/31\/bmj-retracts-cardiac-stem-cell-paper-removes-authors-months-after-sleuths-flag-data-mismatch\/?share=linkedin&nb=1)\n- [Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/03\/31\/bmj-retracts-cardiac-stem-cell-paper-removes-authors-months-after-sleuths-flag-data-mismatch\/?share=mastodon&nb=1)\n- [Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/03\/31\/bmj-retracts-cardiac-stem-cell-paper-removes-authors-months-after-sleuths-flag-data-mismatch\/?share=facebook&nb=1)\n- [Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/03\/31\/bmj-retracts-cardiac-stem-cell-paper-removes-authors-months-after-sleuths-flag-data-mismatch\/?share=twitter&nb=1)\n\nPosted on\n\n[March 31, 2026April 2, 2026](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/03\/31\/bmj-retracts-cardiac-stem-cell-paper-removes-authors-months-after-sleuths-flag-data-mismatch\/)\n\nAuthor [Avery Orrall](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/author\/avery-orrall\/)Categories [authorship issues](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/category\/by-reason-for-retraction\/authorship-issues\/), [bmj](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/category\/by-journal\/bmj\/), [data issues](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/category\/by-reason-for-retraction\/data-issues\/)[1 Comment on BMJ retracts cardiac stem cell paper, removes authors months after sleuths flag data ‘mismatch’](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/03\/31\/bmj-retracts-cardiac-stem-cell-paper-removes-authors-months-after-sleuths-flag-data-mismatch\/#comments)\n\n## Posts pagination\nPage 1 [Page 2](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/page\/2\/) … [Page 700](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/page\/700\/) [Next page](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/page\/2\/)\n\n[Privacy policy](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/privacy-policy\/)  [Proudly powered by WordPress](https:\/\/wordpress.org\/)","attrs_readable_markdown":"[![](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/RCR-framework-proposed-changes-main-1024x576.png)](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/RCR-framework-proposed-changes-main.png)\n\n*Public comment is [invited](https:\/\/rcr.ethics.gc.ca\/eng\/consultations_proposed-updates_mise-a-jour-proposee_framework-cadre_2021.html) through April 17, 2026.*\n\nA Canadian panel is proposing several changes to its guidelines for responsible conduct of research, including a provision that effectively removes any statute of limitations on investigations into potential misconduct.\n\nThe [proposed revisions](https:\/\/rcr.ethics.gc.ca\/eng\/consultations_proposed-updates_mise-a-jour-proposee_framework-cadre_2021.html), from the Canadian Panel on Responsible Conduct of Research (PRCR), are up for public comment until April 17 and have not been made official. The PRCR is an interdisciplinary review and advisory body to Canada’s three federal research funding agencies: the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.\n\n[Continue reading Canadian panel seeks to add more teeth to research oversight](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/10\/canadian-panel-seeks-to-add-more-teeth-to-research-oversight\/#more-134586)\n\n[![](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Photo-Mark-Barnes-Ropes-Gray-Health-Care-Partner.jpg)](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Photo-Mark-Barnes-Ropes-Gray-Health-Care-Partner.jpg)\n\n*Mark Barnes (courtesy of Ropes and Gray LLC)*\n\nIn an [editorial published today](https:\/\/www.science.org\/doi\/10.1126\/science.aeh7187) in *Science*, Michael Lauer and Mark Barnes call for greater transparency in investigations of scientific misconduct with an aim toward making sure prospective academic employers know of applicants’ past misdeeds. As [we’ve reported](https:\/\/undark.org\/2018\/05\/14\/scientific-fraud-academic-fraud-universities\/), in the absence of transparency around findings of misconduct, some universities have discovered too late they hired someone who has turned out to be a serial offender.\n\nLauer, who served as Deputy Director for Extramural Research at the National Institutes of Health from 2015-2025, and Barnes, a partner at Ropes and Gray LLC in Boston who has served as acting research integrity officer at several U.S. institutions, propose a tracking system similar to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB). That database logs adverse actions and malpractice payments as a way to inform decisions about individual physicians by hospitals. As Lauer and Barnes note, federal law “requires a hospital to query the NPDB whenever it is considering a new applicant for medical privileges, as well as to conduct repeat queries every 2 years to make sure information on staff is up to date.” We asked Barnes to elaborate on the ideas presented in the op-ed. (He notes he is speaking only for himself here.)\n\n**Retraction Watch:** You write in your op-ed universities may avoid sharing personal information — presumably including results of misconduct investigations — for fear of legal claims of defamation or violations of privacy. Are those fears valid?\n\n[Continue reading Could a national database of scientific misconduct rulings stop repeat offenders?](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/09\/could-a-national-database-of-scientific-misconduct-rulings-stop-repeat-offenders\/#more-134576)\n\n[![](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/bmc_nephrology.jpg)](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/bmc_nephrology.jpg)\n\nAs the publishing community debates the merits of [naming sleuths in retraction or correction notices](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2025\/07\/30\/noticed-sleuths-are-starting-to-get-credit-for-retractions\/), one journal did so without the sleuth’s permission — by publishing an email from the authors naming her as the correction notice.\n\nThe sleuth calls it “ethical editorial malpractice.” The publisher says it was an “administrative error.” After Retraction Watch reached out for comment, the journal removed the text of the email from the correction notice.\n\n[The paper](https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1186\/s12882-025-04394-8), on trends in chronic kidney disease in people with lupus, appeared in *BMC Nephrology* in August.\n\n[Continue reading A journal named a sleuth in a correction. The sleuth says that was ‘ethical editorial malpractice’](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/08\/bmc-nephrology-journal-named-sleuth-correction-error\/#more-134558)\n\n[![](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/wolters-kluwer-hq-the-netherlands-2017-hyr-1024x576.jpg)](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/wolters-kluwer-hq-the-netherlands-2017-hyr.jpg)\n\n*Wolters Kluwer global headquarters in the Netherlands*\n\nThe Dutch publisher Wolters Kluwer has scrapped some of its citation and study-registration requirements at a top-ranked surgery journal founded by the U.K. plastic surgeon Riaz Agha, Retraction Watch has learned.\n\nThe move follows our investigation last month that found [mandatory citation of reporting guidelines](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/03\/12\/riaz-agha-international-journal-surgery-research-registry-wolters-kluwer\/) developed by Agha and published in the *International Journal of Surgery* (*IJS*) had inflated the impact factor of the open-access title, making it more attractive to authors and readers.\n\nA blanket requirement to register all human studies before manuscript submission, contrary to recommendations from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, appeared to serve another of Agha’s business interests: [a paid research registry](https:\/\/www.researchregistry.com\/) he founded in 2015.\n\n[Continue reading Publisher changes citation, registration policies following Retraction Watch investigation](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/07\/wolters-kluwer-international-journal-surgery-changes-citation-registration-policies\/#more-134551)\n\n[![](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/pexels-rows-stadium-seats-16-9-1024x576.jpg)](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/pexels-rows-stadium-seats-16-9.jpg)\n\n*Pexels*\n\nMarkus Englund, a software developer and sleuth based in the Netherlands, first hit paydirt with invasive plant species in China*.* After having scanned 12 other published scientific datasets with his novel detection software with no results, he [came across](https:\/\/pubpeer.com\/publications\/1FF86EEED4054ECA9E7625F67F79FB) one showing something suspicious: rows and rows of measurements of plant roots repeated across entirely different species.\n\n“I was really excited,” he said in a recent call with Retraction Watch. “I couldn’t think of any innocent explanation for why that would be the case.”\n\nEnglund had built a tool dedicated to “purging” fabricated data by identifying “impossible” data in spreadsheets available on open repositories, according to [Science Detective](https:\/\/www.sciencedetective.org\/about\/), his site about the initiative. From his initial review, he has found 18 datasets containing duplicated values that are possibly serious enough to need correcting — including one from an influential paper on Parkinson’s disease, as *The Transmitter* recently [reported](https:\/\/www.thetransmitter.org\/academia\/data-duplications-flagged-in-highly-cited-gut-brain-studies\/). (Retraction Watch’s cofounder Ivan Oransky is that publication’s editor-in-chief.)\n\n[Continue reading Bloodhound code sniffs out copied-and-pasted numerical data](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/06\/data-duplications-errors-open-repositories-markus-englund\/#more-134534)\n\n[![](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/rw-1024x768.jpeg)](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/rw.jpeg)\n\nIf your week flew by — we know ours did — catch up here with what you might have missed.\n\nThe week at Retraction Watch featured:\n\n- A citation alert led researchers to a network of fake articles. [But who is benefiting](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/03\/30\/fake-articles-plagiarism-preprints-arxiv-ssrn-citation-network\/)?\n- Jury to decide whether Duke retaliated against researcher who [reported sexual harassment](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/03\/31\/duke-retaliation-jury-trial-brahmajothi-mulugu-mohamed-abou-donia-sexual-harassment\/)\n- [BMJ retracts cardiac stem cell paper](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/?p=134507), removes authors months after sleuths flag data ‘mismatch’\n- Biology journal ghosts researcher after [holding paper hostage](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/01\/european-journal-experimental-biology-fee-demand-prime-scholars\/)\n- Judge tosses lawsuit over controversial [Paxil ‘Study 329](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/02\/judge-lawsuit-controversial-adolescents-paxil-study-329\/)’\n- Guest post: Should universities investigate questionable papers students and faculty [wrote elsewhere](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/03\/guest-post-should-universities-investigate-questionable-papers-students-faculty-wrote-elsewhere\/)?\n\nIn case you missed [the news](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2025\/12\/26\/retraction-watch-hijacked-journal-checker-now-has-400-entries\/), the [Hijacked Journal Checker](https:\/\/docs.google.com\/spreadsheets\/d\/1ak985WGOgGbJRJbZFanoktAN_UFeExpE\/edit?gid=5255084#gid=5255084) now has more than 400 entries. The [Retraction Watch Database](https:\/\/gitlab.com\/crossref\/retraction-watch-data) has over 64,000 retractions. Our [list of COVID-19 retractions](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/retracted-coronavirus-covid-19-papers\/) is up to 650, and our [mass resignations list](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/the-retraction-watch-mass-resignations-list\/) has more than 50 entries. We keep tabs on all this and more. If you value this work, please consider showing your support with a tax-deductible donation. Every dollar counts.\n\nHere’s what was happening elsewhere (some of these items may be paywalled, metered access, or require free registration to read):\n\n[Continue reading Weekend reads: Half of social science ‘doesn’t replicate’; ‘Scientific ghosts: Life after retraction’; multisensory learning paper retracted](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/04\/weekend-reads-half-social-science-doesnt-replicate-scientific-ghosts-multisensory-learning-paper-retracted\/#more-134540)\n\n[![](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/magnifying-glass-computer-iStock-1147405001-1024x683.jpg)](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/magnifying-glass-computer-iStock-1147405001.jpg)\n\n*Be-Art\/iStock*\n\nI am a research ethicist and often get asked by my university to investigate when potential concerns are raised about our staff or students. One example involved the recent case of the alleged paper mill and self-citation activities by [Hitler Louis and Innocent Benjamin](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/02\/24\/chemist-hitler-louis-nigeria-retractions-image-duplication-self-citation\/). The matter raised significant questions about who within the research community has the responsibility to act when concerns like this are raised.\n\nRegular readers of Retraction Watch know that detecting alleged research misconduct is a haphazard affair. Frequently a university will find out about concerns after being notified by research integrity sleuths writing under pseudonyms. In this case, “Cisticola Tinniens” informed us that one of our current MSc students (Benjamin) had an unusually high number of publications for his early career stage, with some highlighted on the PubPeer website as potentially problematic.\n\nThe first thing we did was to check to see whether our university was named in any of these papers, as clearly institutions do have a responsibility for research attributed to our researchers or students. We found only one of the suspect papers named us directly, and since the work definitely had not occurred at our institution, it was relatively easy to get this affiliation [corrected almost immediately](https:\/\/www.pubpeer.com\/publications\/E3637FC6DBCDC05C830D5157873351#3).\n\n[Continue reading Guest post: Should universities investigate questionable papers students and faculty wrote elsewhere?](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/03\/guest-post-should-universities-investigate-questionable-papers-students-faculty-wrote-elsewhere\/#more-134494)\n\n[![](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/study-329-motion-to-dismiss-tearaway-1024x576.png)](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/study-329-motion-to-dismiss-tearaway.png)\n\nA judge has dismissed a legal challenge aimed at forcing Elsevier to retract a long-criticized study that concluded the antidepressant Paxil was safe and effective for teens.\n\nThe [2001 paper](https:\/\/www.jaacap.org\/article\/S0890-8567\$09\$60309-9\/abstract), published in the *Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry* (*JAACAP*), has faced scrutiny for more than 20 years by critics who say the study has led to unwarranted and potentially harmful prescribing of the drug to youth. As [we reported last October](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2025\/10\/16\/controversial-paxil-study-329-earns-expression-of-concern-after-critic-sues-publisher\/), the journal placed an [expression of concern](https:\/\/www.jaacap.org\/article\/S0890-8567\$25\$02107-0\/fulltext) on the paper shortly after a lawsuit was filed by attorney George W. Murgatroyd III against the journal’s owner, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), and Elsevier, which publishes the title.\n\nIn [his complaint](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/2025-CAB-005368.pdf), filed in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Murgatroyd claimed the journal is violating the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) by continuing to “publish, distribute, and sell a fraudulent scientific article that contains material facts” that mislead the public and endanger adolescent mental health and safety. AACAP and Elsevier are profiting from the article by charging readers to buy access to the paper, according to the complaint.\n\n[Continue reading Judge tosses lawsuit over controversial Paxil ‘Study 329’](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/02\/judge-lawsuit-controversial-adolescents-paxil-study-329\/#more-134526)\n\n[![](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/european-journal-of-experimental-biology-flyer.jpg)](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/european-journal-of-experimental-biology-flyer.jpg)\n\nIn a story readers might find familiar, a researcher was asked to pay when he demanded a journal retract an article he had never seen but supposedly wrote — and the journal ghosted him when he refused.\n\nIn February, [Evgenios Agathokleous](https:\/\/www.evgenios.info\/), an environmental resources researcher at Nanjing University of Information Science & Technology in China, asked Prime Scholars’ *European Journal of Experimental Biology* to retract a [2023 article](https:\/\/www.primescholars.com\/articles\/an-indepth-exploration-of-pests-used-on-plants-in-agriculture-and-horticulture-121905.html) that listed him as the sole author. In his email to the journal, he said he had never seen the paper and asked the journal to remove it and publish a formal retraction notice.\n\nTwo days later, a Prime Scholars representative named Nina responded, telling Agathokleous “your article has already been successfully published in our journal in accordance with the company’s publication norms and policies.” Nina then asked Agathokleous to pay 519 euros, the equivalent of roughly \\$600, which they said “covers the costs associated with publication handling, indexing preparation, and database maintenance.”\n\n[Continue reading Biology journal ghosts researcher after holding paper hostage](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/04\/01\/european-journal-experimental-biology-fee-demand-prime-scholars\/#more-134514)\n\n[![](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/bmj-prevent-taha8-retraction_rev-1024x618.png)](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/bmj-prevent-taha8-retraction_rev.png)\n\n*The BMJ* has retracted a paper on stem cell therapy for heart failure after [sleuths flagged the work](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2025\/11\/06\/sleuths-flag-complete-mismatch-in-data-of-bmj-stem-cell-study\/) for “serious” inconsistencies in data.\n\nPublished in October, [the paper](https:\/\/www.bmj.com\/content\/391\/bmj-2024-083382) reported the results of a phase III clinical trial of more than 400 patients in Shiraz, Iran, looking at whether stem cell therapy lowers the risk of heart failure after a heart attack. The journal announced the results in a [press release](https:\/\/bmjgroup.com\/stem-cell-therapy-linked-to-lower-risk-of-heart-failure-after-a-heart-attack\/), and news of the findings appeared in several outlets. [*New Scientist*](https:\/\/www.newscientist.com\/article\/2502081-stem-cell-therapy-lowers-risk-of-heart-failure-after-a-heart-attack\/) called the study the “strongest evidence yet that stem cells can help the heart repair itself.”\n\nA week after the study was published, sleuths [took to PubPeer](https:\/\/pubpeer.com\/publications\/C08779C45DB6E407DFAC85583BE9C4#1) to point out inconsistencies between the data reported in the article and the [dataset](https:\/\/figshare.com\/articles\/dataset\/_b_PREVENT-TAHA8_study_Dataset_Prevention_of_Acute_Myocardial_Infarction-Induced_Heart_Failure_by_Intracoronary_Infusion_of_Mesenchymal_Stem_Cells_A_Phase_III_Randomized_Clinical_Trial_b_\/29375153\/2?file=55664687) uploaded with it. The concerns included a “curious repeating pattern” of records in the dataset and a high number of integers for the height and weight of patients.\n\n[Continue reading BMJ retracts cardiac stem cell paper, removes authors months after sleuths flag data ‘mismatch’](https:\/\/retractionwatch.com\/2026\/03\/31\/bmj-retracts-cardiac-stem-cell-paper-removes-authors-months-after-sleuths-flag-data-mismatch\/#more-134507)","meta_canonical":null}

3. Robots.txt Check

Query:

Response:

4. Spam/Ban Check

Query:

Response:

5. Seen Status Check

ℹ️ Skipped - page is already crawled

📄

INDEXABLE

✅

CRAWLED

3 hours ago

🤖

ROBOTS ALLOWED

Page Info Filters

Filter	Status	Condition	Details
HTTP status	PASS	`download_http_code = 200`	HTTP 200
Age cutoff	PASS	`download_stamp > now() - 6 MONTH`	0 months ago
History drop	PASS	`isNull(history_drop_reason)`	No drop reason
Spam/ban	PASS	`fh_dont_index != 1 AND ml_spam_score = 0`	ml_spam_score=0
Canonical	PASS	`meta_canonical IS NULL OR = '' OR = src_unparsed`	Not set

Page Details

Property	Value
URL	https://retractionwatch.com/
Last Crawled	2026-04-11 05:42:50 (3 hours ago)
First Indexed	2016-10-25 18:33:35 (9 years ago)
HTTP Status Code	200
Meta Title	Retraction Watch – Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process
Meta Description	Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process
Meta Canonical	null
Boilerpipe Text	Public comment is invited through April 17, 2026. A Canadian panel is proposing several changes to its guidelines for responsible conduct of research, including a provision that effectively removes any statute of limitations on investigations into potential misconduct. The proposed revisions , from the Canadian Panel on Responsible Conduct of Research (PRCR), are up for public comment until April 17 and have not been made official. The PRCR is an interdisciplinary review and advisory body to Canada’s three federal research funding agencies: the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Continue reading Canadian panel seeks to add more teeth to research oversight Mark Barnes (courtesy of Ropes and Gray LLC) In an editorial published today in Science , Michael Lauer and Mark Barnes call for greater transparency in investigations of scientific misconduct with an aim toward making sure prospective academic employers know of applicants’ past misdeeds. As we’ve reported , in the absence of transparency around findings of misconduct, some universities have discovered too late they hired someone who has turned out to be a serial offender. Lauer, who served as Deputy Director for Extramural Research at the National Institutes of Health from 2015-2025, and Barnes, a partner at Ropes and Gray LLC in Boston who has served as acting research integrity officer at several U.S. institutions, propose a tracking system similar to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB). That database logs adverse actions and malpractice payments as a way to inform decisions about individual physicians by hospitals. As Lauer and Barnes note, federal law “requires a hospital to query the NPDB whenever it is considering a new applicant for medical privileges, as well as to conduct repeat queries every 2 years to make sure information on staff is up to date.” We asked Barnes to elaborate on the ideas presented in the op-ed. (He notes he is speaking only for himself here.) Retraction Watch: You write in your op-ed universities may avoid sharing personal information — presumably including results of misconduct investigations — for fear of legal claims of defamation or violations of privacy. Are those fears valid? Continue reading Could a national database of scientific misconduct rulings stop repeat offenders? As the publishing community debates the merits of naming sleuths in retraction or correction notices , one journal did so without the sleuth’s permission — by publishing an email from the authors naming her as the correction notice. The sleuth calls it “ethical editorial malpractice.” The publisher says it was an “administrative error.” After Retraction Watch reached out for comment, the journal removed the text of the email from the correction notice. The paper , on trends in chronic kidney disease in people with lupus, appeared in BMC Nephrology in August. Continue reading A journal named a sleuth in a correction. The sleuth says that was ‘ethical editorial malpractice’ Wolters Kluwer global headquarters in the Netherlands The Dutch publisher Wolters Kluwer has scrapped some of its citation and study-registration requirements at a top-ranked surgery journal founded by the U.K. plastic surgeon Riaz Agha, Retraction Watch has learned. The move follows our investigation last month that found mandatory citation of reporting guidelines developed by Agha and published in the International Journal of Surgery ( IJS ) had inflated the impact factor of the open-access title, making it more attractive to authors and readers. A blanket requirement to register all human studies before manuscript submission, contrary to recommendations from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, appeared to serve another of Agha’s business interests: a paid research registry he founded in 2015. Continue reading Publisher changes citation, registration policies following Retraction Watch investigation Pexels Markus Englund, a software developer and sleuth based in the Netherlands, first hit paydirt with invasive plant species in China . After having scanned 12 other published scientific datasets with his novel detection software with no results, he came across one showing something suspicious: rows and rows of measurements of plant roots repeated across entirely different species. “I was really excited,” he said in a recent call with Retraction Watch. “I couldn’t think of any innocent explanation for why that would be the case.” Englund had built a tool dedicated to “purging” fabricated data by identifying “impossible” data in spreadsheets available on open repositories, according to Science Detective , his site about the initiative. From his initial review, he has found 18 datasets containing duplicated values that are possibly serious enough to need correcting — including one from an influential paper on Parkinson’s disease, as The Transmitter recently reported . (Retraction Watch’s cofounder Ivan Oransky is that publication’s editor-in-chief.) Continue reading Bloodhound code sniffs out copied-and-pasted numerical data If your week flew by — we know ours did — catch up here with what you might have missed. The week at Retraction Watch featured: A citation alert led researchers to a network of fake articles. But who is benefiting ? Jury to decide whether Duke retaliated against researcher who reported sexual harassment BMJ retracts cardiac stem cell paper , removes authors months after sleuths flag data ‘mismatch’ Biology journal ghosts researcher after holding paper hostage Judge tosses lawsuit over controversial Paxil ‘Study 329 ’ Guest post: Should universities investigate questionable papers students and faculty wrote elsewhere ? In case you missed the news , the Hijacked Journal Checker now has more than 400 entries. The Retraction Watch Database has over 64,000 retractions. Our list of COVID-19 retractions is up to 650, and our mass resignations list has more than 50 entries. We keep tabs on all this and more. If you value this work, please consider showing your support with a tax-deductible donation. Every dollar counts. Here’s what was happening elsewhere (some of these items may be paywalled, metered access, or require free registration to read): Continue reading Weekend reads: Half of social science ‘doesn’t replicate’; ‘Scientific ghosts: Life after retraction’; multisensory learning paper retracted Be-Art/iStock I am a research ethicist and often get asked by my university to investigate when potential concerns are raised about our staff or students. One example involved the recent case of the alleged paper mill and self-citation activities by Hitler Louis and Innocent Benjamin . The matter raised significant questions about who within the research community has the responsibility to act when concerns like this are raised. Regular readers of Retraction Watch know that detecting alleged research misconduct is a haphazard affair. Frequently a university will find out about concerns after being notified by research integrity sleuths writing under pseudonyms. In this case, “Cisticola Tinniens” informed us that one of our current MSc students (Benjamin) had an unusually high number of publications for his early career stage, with some highlighted on the PubPeer website as potentially problematic. The first thing we did was to check to see whether our university was named in any of these papers, as clearly institutions do have a responsibility for research attributed to our researchers or students. We found only one of the suspect papers named us directly, and since the work definitely had not occurred at our institution, it was relatively easy to get this affiliation corrected almost immediately . Continue reading Guest post: Should universities investigate questionable papers students and faculty wrote elsewhere? A judge has dismissed a legal challenge aimed at forcing Elsevier to retract a long-criticized study that concluded the antidepressant Paxil was safe and effective for teens. The 2001 paper , published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry ( JAACAP ), has faced scrutiny for more than 20 years by critics who say the study has led to unwarranted and potentially harmful prescribing of the drug to youth. As we reported last October , the journal placed an expression of concern on the paper shortly after a lawsuit was filed by attorney George W. Murgatroyd III against the journal’s owner, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), and Elsevier, which publishes the title. In his complaint , filed in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Murgatroyd claimed the journal is violating the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) by continuing to “publish, distribute, and sell a fraudulent scientific article that contains material facts” that mislead the public and endanger adolescent mental health and safety. AACAP and Elsevier are profiting from the article by charging readers to buy access to the paper, according to the complaint. Continue reading Judge tosses lawsuit over controversial Paxil ‘Study 329’ In a story readers might find familiar, a researcher was asked to pay when he demanded a journal retract an article he had never seen but supposedly wrote — and the journal ghosted him when he refused. In February, Evgenios Agathokleous , an environmental resources researcher at Nanjing University of Information Science & Technology in China, asked Prime Scholars’ European Journal of Experimental Biology to retract a 2023 article that listed him as the sole author. In his email to the journal, he said he had never seen the paper and asked the journal to remove it and publish a formal retraction notice. Two days later, a Prime Scholars representative named Nina responded, telling Agathokleous “your article has already been successfully published in our journal in accordance with the company’s publication norms and policies.” Nina then asked Agathokleous to pay 519 euros, the equivalent of roughly $600, which they said “covers the costs associated with publication handling, indexing preparation, and database maintenance.” Continue reading Biology journal ghosts researcher after holding paper hostage The BMJ has retracted a paper on stem cell therapy for heart failure after sleuths flagged the work for “serious” inconsistencies in data. Published in October, the paper reported the results of a phase III clinical trial of more than 400 patients in Shiraz, Iran, looking at whether stem cell therapy lowers the risk of heart failure after a heart attack. The journal announced the results in a press release , and news of the findings appeared in several outlets. New Scientist called the study the “strongest evidence yet that stem cells can help the heart repair itself.” A week after the study was published, sleuths took to PubPeer to point out inconsistencies between the data reported in the article and the dataset uploaded with it. The concerns included a “curious repeating pattern” of records in the dataset and a high number of integers for the height and weight of patients. Continue reading BMJ retracts cardiac stem cell paper, removes authors months after sleuths flag data ‘mismatch’
Markdown	[Skip to content](https://retractionwatch.com/#content) # [Retraction Watch](https://retractionwatch.com/) Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process Menu and widgets ## Get Retraction Watch in your inbox Processing… Success! You're on the list. Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again. [Support Retraction Watch](https://retractionwatch.com/support-retraction-watch/) ## Retraction Watch Lists - [The Retraction Watch Leaderboard](https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-leaderboard/) - [Retractions by Nobel Prize winners](https://retractionwatch.com/retractions-by-nobel-prize-winners/) - [Top 10 most highly cited retracted papers](https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-leaderboard/top-10-most-highly-cited-retracted-papers/) - [The Retraction Watch Mass Resignations List](https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-mass-resignations-list/) - [The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker](https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-hijacked-journal-checker/) - [Papers and peer reviews with evidence of ChatGPT writing](https://retractionwatch.com/papers-and-peer-reviews-with-evidence-of-chatgpt-writing/) - [Retracted coronavirus (COVID-19) papers](https://retractionwatch.com/retracted-coronavirus-covid-19-papers/) ## Search Retraction Watch ## Retraction Watch Database - [Database User Guide](https://retractionwatch.com/retraction-watch-database-user-guide/) - [View the Database](https://gitlab.com/crossref/retraction-watch-data) ## About Retraction Watch - [Meet the Retraction Watch staff](https://retractionwatch.com/meet-the-retraction-watch-staff/) - [About Adam Marcus](https://retractionwatch.com/meet-the-retraction-watch-staff/about-adam-marcus/) - [About Ivan Oransky](https://retractionwatch.com/meet-the-retraction-watch-staff/about/) - [Job opportunities](https://retractionwatch.com/job-opportunities/) - [Retraction Watch Research Accountability Reporting Fellowship](https://retractionwatch.com/fellowship/) - [Retraction Watch journalism internship](https://retractionwatch.com/internship/) - [The Center for Scientific Integrity](https://centerforscientificintegrity.org/) - [The Ctrl-Z Award](https://retractionwatch.com/ctrl-z-award/) - [The Retraction Watch FAQ, including comments policy](https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-faq/) - [Papers that cite Retraction Watch](https://retractionwatch.com/papers-that-cite-retraction-watch/) - [What people are saying about Retraction Watch](https://retractionwatch.com/what-people-are-saying-about-retraction-watch/) - [Invite us to speak](https://retractionwatch.com/invite-us-to-speak/) ## Recent Comments - [Edward R Ringel](http://www.electricmammal.com/) on [Could a national database of scientific misconduct rulings stop repeat offenders?](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/09/could-a-national-database-of-scientific-misconduct-rulings-stop-repeat-offenders/#comment-2379034) - [Edward R Ringel](http://www.electricmammal.com/) on [Could a national database of scientific misconduct rulings stop repeat offenders?](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/09/could-a-national-database-of-scientific-misconduct-rulings-stop-repeat-offenders/#comment-2379019) - Guititio on [Could a national database of scientific misconduct rulings stop repeat offenders?](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/09/could-a-national-database-of-scientific-misconduct-rulings-stop-repeat-offenders/#comment-2379008) ## Archives Archives ## [Canadian panel seeks to add more teeth to research oversight](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/10/canadian-panel-seeks-to-add-more-teeth-to-research-oversight/) [![](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/RCR-framework-proposed-changes-main-1024x576.png)](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/RCR-framework-proposed-changes-main.png) Public comment is [invited](https://rcr.ethics.gc.ca/eng/consultations_proposed-updates_mise-a-jour-proposee_framework-cadre_2021.html) through April 17, 2026. A Canadian panel is proposing several changes to its guidelines for responsible conduct of research, including a provision that effectively removes any statute of limitations on investigations into potential misconduct. The [proposed revisions](https://rcr.ethics.gc.ca/eng/consultations_proposed-updates_mise-a-jour-proposee_framework-cadre_2021.html), from the Canadian Panel on Responsible Conduct of Research (PRCR), are up for public comment until April 17 and have not been made official. The PRCR is an interdisciplinary review and advisory body to Canada’s three federal research funding agencies: the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. [Continue reading Canadian panel seeks to add more teeth to research oversight](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/10/canadian-panel-seeks-to-add-more-teeth-to-research-oversight/#more-134586) ### Share this: - [Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email](mailto:?subject=%5BShared%20Post%5D%20Canadian%20panel%20seeks%20to%20add%20more%20teeth%20to%20research%20oversight&body=https%3A%2F%2Fretractionwatch.com%2F2026%2F04%2F10%2Fcanadian-panel-seeks-to-add-more-teeth-to-research-oversight%2F&share=email&nb=1) - [Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/10/canadian-panel-seeks-to-add-more-teeth-to-research-oversight/?share=bluesky&nb=1) - [Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/10/canadian-panel-seeks-to-add-more-teeth-to-research-oversight/?share=linkedin&nb=1) - [Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/10/canadian-panel-seeks-to-add-more-teeth-to-research-oversight/?share=mastodon&nb=1) - [Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/10/canadian-panel-seeks-to-add-more-teeth-to-research-oversight/?share=facebook&nb=1) - [Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/10/canadian-panel-seeks-to-add-more-teeth-to-research-oversight/?share=twitter&nb=1) Posted on [April 10, 2026](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/10/canadian-panel-seeks-to-add-more-teeth-to-research-oversight/) Author [Retraction Watch Staff](https://retractionwatch.com/author/staff/)Categories [canada](https://retractionwatch.com/category/by-country/canada/)[Leave a comment on Canadian panel seeks to add more teeth to research oversight](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/10/canadian-panel-seeks-to-add-more-teeth-to-research-oversight/#respond) ## [Could a national database of scientific misconduct rulings stop repeat offenders?](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/09/could-a-national-database-of-scientific-misconduct-rulings-stop-repeat-offenders/) [![](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Photo-Mark-Barnes-Ropes-Gray-Health-Care-Partner.jpg)](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Photo-Mark-Barnes-Ropes-Gray-Health-Care-Partner.jpg) Mark Barnes (courtesy of Ropes and Gray LLC) In an [editorial published today](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aeh7187) in Science, Michael Lauer and Mark Barnes call for greater transparency in investigations of scientific misconduct with an aim toward making sure prospective academic employers know of applicants’ past misdeeds. As [we’ve reported](https://undark.org/2018/05/14/scientific-fraud-academic-fraud-universities/), in the absence of transparency around findings of misconduct, some universities have discovered too late they hired someone who has turned out to be a serial offender. Lauer, who served as Deputy Director for Extramural Research at the National Institutes of Health from 2015-2025, and Barnes, a partner at Ropes and Gray LLC in Boston who has served as acting research integrity officer at several U.S. institutions, propose a tracking system similar to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB). That database logs adverse actions and malpractice payments as a way to inform decisions about individual physicians by hospitals. As Lauer and Barnes note, federal law “requires a hospital to query the NPDB whenever it is considering a new applicant for medical privileges, as well as to conduct repeat queries every 2 years to make sure information on staff is up to date.” We asked Barnes to elaborate on the ideas presented in the op-ed. (He notes he is speaking only for himself here.) Retraction Watch: You write in your op-ed universities may avoid sharing personal information — presumably including results of misconduct investigations — for fear of legal claims of defamation or violations of privacy. Are those fears valid? [Continue reading Could a national database of scientific misconduct rulings stop repeat offenders?](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/09/could-a-national-database-of-scientific-misconduct-rulings-stop-repeat-offenders/#more-134576) ### Share this: - [Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email](mailto:?subject=%5BShared%20Post%5D%20Could%20a%20national%20database%20of%20scientific%20misconduct%20rulings%20stop%20repeat%20offenders%3F&body=https%3A%2F%2Fretractionwatch.com%2F2026%2F04%2F09%2Fcould-a-national-database-of-scientific-misconduct-rulings-stop-repeat-offenders%2F&share=email&nb=1) - [Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/09/could-a-national-database-of-scientific-misconduct-rulings-stop-repeat-offenders/?share=bluesky&nb=1) - [Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/09/could-a-national-database-of-scientific-misconduct-rulings-stop-repeat-offenders/?share=linkedin&nb=1) - [Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/09/could-a-national-database-of-scientific-misconduct-rulings-stop-repeat-offenders/?share=mastodon&nb=1) - [Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/09/could-a-national-database-of-scientific-misconduct-rulings-stop-repeat-offenders/?share=facebook&nb=1) - [Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/09/could-a-national-database-of-scientific-misconduct-rulings-stop-repeat-offenders/?share=twitter&nb=1) Posted on [April 9, 2026April 9, 2026](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/09/could-a-national-database-of-scientific-misconduct-rulings-stop-repeat-offenders/) Author [Retraction Watch Staff](https://retractionwatch.com/author/staff/)Categories [AAAS](https://retractionwatch.com/category/by-publisher/aaas/), [misconduct investigations](https://retractionwatch.com/category/by-reason-for-retraction/misconduct-investigations/), [science (journal)](https://retractionwatch.com/category/by-journal/science-journal/), [united states](https://retractionwatch.com/category/by-country/united-states/)[6 Comments on Could a national database of scientific misconduct rulings stop repeat offenders?](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/09/could-a-national-database-of-scientific-misconduct-rulings-stop-repeat-offenders/#comments) ## [A journal named a sleuth in a correction. The sleuth says that was ‘ethical editorial malpractice’](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/08/bmc-nephrology-journal-named-sleuth-correction-error/) [![](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/bmc_nephrology.jpg)](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/bmc_nephrology.jpg) As the publishing community debates the merits of [naming sleuths in retraction or correction notices](https://retractionwatch.com/2025/07/30/noticed-sleuths-are-starting-to-get-credit-for-retractions/), one journal did so without the sleuth’s permission — by publishing an email from the authors naming her as the correction notice. The sleuth calls it “ethical editorial malpractice.” The publisher says it was an “administrative error.” After Retraction Watch reached out for comment, the journal removed the text of the email from the correction notice. [The paper](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12882-025-04394-8), on trends in chronic kidney disease in people with lupus, appeared in BMC Nephrology in August. [Continue reading A journal named a sleuth in a correction. The sleuth says that was ‘ethical editorial malpractice’](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/08/bmc-nephrology-journal-named-sleuth-correction-error/#more-134558) ### Share this: - [Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email](mailto:?subject=%5BShared%20Post%5D%20A%20journal%20named%20a%20sleuth%20in%20a%20correction.%20The%20sleuth%20says%20that%20was%20%E2%80%98ethical%20editorial%20malpractice%E2%80%99&body=https%3A%2F%2Fretractionwatch.com%2F2026%2F04%2F08%2Fbmc-nephrology-journal-named-sleuth-correction-error%2F&share=email&nb=1) - [Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/08/bmc-nephrology-journal-named-sleuth-correction-error/?share=bluesky&nb=1) - [Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/08/bmc-nephrology-journal-named-sleuth-correction-error/?share=linkedin&nb=1) - [Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/08/bmc-nephrology-journal-named-sleuth-correction-error/?share=mastodon&nb=1) - [Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/08/bmc-nephrology-journal-named-sleuth-correction-error/?share=facebook&nb=1) - [Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/08/bmc-nephrology-journal-named-sleuth-correction-error/?share=twitter&nb=1) Posted on [April 8, 2026April 8, 2026](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/08/bmc-nephrology-journal-named-sleuth-correction-error/) Author [Avery Orrall](https://retractionwatch.com/author/avery-orrall/)Categories [corrections](https://retractionwatch.com/category/corrections/), [publisher error](https://retractionwatch.com/category/by-reason-for-retraction/publisher-error/)[2 Comments on A journal named a sleuth in a correction. The sleuth says that was ‘ethical editorial malpractice’](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/08/bmc-nephrology-journal-named-sleuth-correction-error/#comments) ## [Publisher changes citation, registration policies following Retraction Watch investigation](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/07/wolters-kluwer-international-journal-surgery-changes-citation-registration-policies/) [![](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/wolters-kluwer-hq-the-netherlands-2017-hyr-1024x576.jpg)](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/wolters-kluwer-hq-the-netherlands-2017-hyr.jpg) Wolters Kluwer global headquarters in the Netherlands The Dutch publisher Wolters Kluwer has scrapped some of its citation and study-registration requirements at a top-ranked surgery journal founded by the U.K. plastic surgeon Riaz Agha, Retraction Watch has learned. The move follows our investigation last month that found [mandatory citation of reporting guidelines](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/03/12/riaz-agha-international-journal-surgery-research-registry-wolters-kluwer/) developed by Agha and published in the International Journal of Surgery (IJS) had inflated the impact factor of the open-access title, making it more attractive to authors and readers. A blanket requirement to register all human studies before manuscript submission, contrary to recommendations from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, appeared to serve another of Agha’s business interests: [a paid research registry](https://www.researchregistry.com/) he founded in 2015. [Continue reading Publisher changes citation, registration policies following Retraction Watch investigation](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/07/wolters-kluwer-international-journal-surgery-changes-citation-registration-policies/#more-134551) ### Share this: - [Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email](mailto:?subject=%5BShared%20Post%5D%20Publisher%20changes%20citation%2C%20registration%20policies%20following%20Retraction%20Watch%20investigation&body=https%3A%2F%2Fretractionwatch.com%2F2026%2F04%2F07%2Fwolters-kluwer-international-journal-surgery-changes-citation-registration-policies%2F&share=email&nb=1) - [Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/07/wolters-kluwer-international-journal-surgery-changes-citation-registration-policies/?share=bluesky&nb=1) - [Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/07/wolters-kluwer-international-journal-surgery-changes-citation-registration-policies/?share=linkedin&nb=1) - [Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/07/wolters-kluwer-international-journal-surgery-changes-citation-registration-policies/?share=mastodon&nb=1) - [Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/07/wolters-kluwer-international-journal-surgery-changes-citation-registration-policies/?share=facebook&nb=1) - [Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/07/wolters-kluwer-international-journal-surgery-changes-citation-registration-policies/?share=twitter&nb=1) Posted on [April 7, 2026](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/07/wolters-kluwer-international-journal-surgery-changes-citation-registration-policies/) Author [Frederik Joelving](https://retractionwatch.com/author/frederik-joelving/)Categories [int j surgery](https://retractionwatch.com/category/by-journal/int-j-surgery/), [wolters kluwer lippincott](https://retractionwatch.com/category/by-publisher/wolters-kluwer-lippincott/)[1 Comment on Publisher changes citation, registration policies following Retraction Watch investigation](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/07/wolters-kluwer-international-journal-surgery-changes-citation-registration-policies/#comments) ## [Bloodhound code sniffs out copied-and-pasted numerical data](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/06/data-duplications-errors-open-repositories-markus-englund/) [![](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/pexels-rows-stadium-seats-16-9-1024x576.jpg)](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/pexels-rows-stadium-seats-16-9.jpg) Pexels Markus Englund, a software developer and sleuth based in the Netherlands, first hit paydirt with invasive plant species in China. After having scanned 12 other published scientific datasets with his novel detection software with no results, he [came across](https://pubpeer.com/publications/1FF86EEED4054ECA9E7625F67F79FB) one showing something suspicious: rows and rows of measurements of plant roots repeated across entirely different species. “I was really excited,” he said in a recent call with Retraction Watch. “I couldn’t think of any innocent explanation for why that would be the case.” Englund had built a tool dedicated to “purging” fabricated data by identifying “impossible” data in spreadsheets available on open repositories, according to [Science Detective](https://www.sciencedetective.org/about/), his site about the initiative. From his initial review, he has found 18 datasets containing duplicated values that are possibly serious enough to need correcting — including one from an influential paper on Parkinson’s disease, as The Transmitter recently [reported](https://www.thetransmitter.org/academia/data-duplications-flagged-in-highly-cited-gut-brain-studies/). (Retraction Watch’s cofounder Ivan Oransky is that publication’s editor-in-chief.) [Continue reading Bloodhound code sniffs out copied-and-pasted numerical data](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/06/data-duplications-errors-open-repositories-markus-englund/#more-134534) ### Share this: - [Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email](mailto:?subject=%5BShared%20Post%5D%20Bloodhound%20code%20sniffs%20out%20copied-and-pasted%20numerical%20data&body=https%3A%2F%2Fretractionwatch.com%2F2026%2F04%2F06%2Fdata-duplications-errors-open-repositories-markus-englund%2F&share=email&nb=1) - [Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/06/data-duplications-errors-open-repositories-markus-englund/?share=bluesky&nb=1) - [Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/06/data-duplications-errors-open-repositories-markus-englund/?share=linkedin&nb=1) - [Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/06/data-duplications-errors-open-repositories-markus-englund/?share=mastodon&nb=1) - [Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/06/data-duplications-errors-open-repositories-markus-englund/?share=facebook&nb=1) - [Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/06/data-duplications-errors-open-repositories-markus-englund/?share=twitter&nb=1) Posted on [April 6, 2026April 3, 2026](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/06/data-duplications-errors-open-repositories-markus-englund/) Author [Lori Youmshajekian](https://retractionwatch.com/author/lori-youmshajekian/)Categories [data issues](https://retractionwatch.com/category/by-reason-for-retraction/data-issues/)[2 Comments on Bloodhound code sniffs out copied-and-pasted numerical data](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/06/data-duplications-errors-open-repositories-markus-englund/#comments) ## [Weekend reads: Half of social science ‘doesn’t replicate’; ‘Scientific ghosts: Life after retraction’; multisensory learning paper retracted](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/04/weekend-reads-half-social-science-doesnt-replicate-scientific-ghosts-multisensory-learning-paper-retracted/) [![](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/rw-1024x768.jpeg)](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/rw.jpeg) If your week flew by — we know ours did — catch up here with what you might have missed. The week at Retraction Watch featured: - A citation alert led researchers to a network of fake articles. [But who is benefiting](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/03/30/fake-articles-plagiarism-preprints-arxiv-ssrn-citation-network/)? - Jury to decide whether Duke retaliated against researcher who [reported sexual harassment](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/03/31/duke-retaliation-jury-trial-brahmajothi-mulugu-mohamed-abou-donia-sexual-harassment/) - [BMJ retracts cardiac stem cell paper](https://retractionwatch.com/?p=134507), removes authors months after sleuths flag data ‘mismatch’ - Biology journal ghosts researcher after [holding paper hostage](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/01/european-journal-experimental-biology-fee-demand-prime-scholars/) - Judge tosses lawsuit over controversial [Paxil ‘Study 329](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/02/judge-lawsuit-controversial-adolescents-paxil-study-329/)’ - Guest post: Should universities investigate questionable papers students and faculty [wrote elsewhere](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/03/guest-post-should-universities-investigate-questionable-papers-students-faculty-wrote-elsewhere/)? In case you missed [the news](https://retractionwatch.com/2025/12/26/retraction-watch-hijacked-journal-checker-now-has-400-entries/), the [Hijacked Journal Checker](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ak985WGOgGbJRJbZFanoktAN_UFeExpE/edit?gid=5255084#gid=5255084) now has more than 400 entries. The [Retraction Watch Database](https://gitlab.com/crossref/retraction-watch-data) has over 64,000 retractions. Our [list of COVID-19 retractions](https://retractionwatch.com/retracted-coronavirus-covid-19-papers/) is up to 650, and our [mass resignations list](https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-mass-resignations-list/) has more than 50 entries. We keep tabs on all this and more. If you value this work, please consider showing your support with a tax-deductible donation. Every dollar counts. [I Support Retraction Watch](https://centerforscientificintegrity.org/support-our-work/) Here’s what was happening elsewhere (some of these items may be paywalled, metered access, or require free registration to read): [Continue reading Weekend reads: Half of social science ‘doesn’t replicate’; ‘Scientific ghosts: Life after retraction’; multisensory learning paper retracted](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/04/weekend-reads-half-social-science-doesnt-replicate-scientific-ghosts-multisensory-learning-paper-retracted/#more-134540) ### Share this: - [Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email](mailto:?subject=%5BShared%20Post%5D%20Weekend%20reads%3A%20Half%20of%20social%20science%20%E2%80%98doesn%E2%80%99t%20replicate%E2%80%99%3B%20%E2%80%98Scientific%20ghosts%3A%20Life%20after%20retraction%E2%80%99%3B%20multisensory%20learning%20paper%20retracted&body=https%3A%2F%2Fretractionwatch.com%2F2026%2F04%2F04%2Fweekend-reads-half-social-science-doesnt-replicate-scientific-ghosts-multisensory-learning-paper-retracted%2F&share=email&nb=1) - [Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/04/weekend-reads-half-social-science-doesnt-replicate-scientific-ghosts-multisensory-learning-paper-retracted/?share=bluesky&nb=1) - [Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/04/weekend-reads-half-social-science-doesnt-replicate-scientific-ghosts-multisensory-learning-paper-retracted/?share=linkedin&nb=1) - [Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/04/weekend-reads-half-social-science-doesnt-replicate-scientific-ghosts-multisensory-learning-paper-retracted/?share=mastodon&nb=1) - [Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/04/weekend-reads-half-social-science-doesnt-replicate-scientific-ghosts-multisensory-learning-paper-retracted/?share=facebook&nb=1) - [Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/04/weekend-reads-half-social-science-doesnt-replicate-scientific-ghosts-multisensory-learning-paper-retracted/?share=twitter&nb=1) Posted on [April 4, 2026April 3, 2026](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/04/weekend-reads-half-social-science-doesnt-replicate-scientific-ghosts-multisensory-learning-paper-retracted/) Author [Retraction Watch Staff](https://retractionwatch.com/author/staff/)Categories [weekend reads](https://retractionwatch.com/category/weekend-reads/)[3 Comments on Weekend reads: Half of social science ‘doesn’t replicate’; ‘Scientific ghosts: Life after retraction’; multisensory learning paper retracted](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/04/weekend-reads-half-social-science-doesnt-replicate-scientific-ghosts-multisensory-learning-paper-retracted/#comments) ## [Guest post: Should universities investigate questionable papers students and faculty wrote elsewhere?](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/03/guest-post-should-universities-investigate-questionable-papers-students-faculty-wrote-elsewhere/) [![](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/magnifying-glass-computer-iStock-1147405001-1024x683.jpg)](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/magnifying-glass-computer-iStock-1147405001.jpg) Be-Art/iStock I am a research ethicist and often get asked by my university to investigate when potential concerns are raised about our staff or students. One example involved the recent case of the alleged paper mill and self-citation activities by [Hitler Louis and Innocent Benjamin](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/02/24/chemist-hitler-louis-nigeria-retractions-image-duplication-self-citation/). The matter raised significant questions about who within the research community has the responsibility to act when concerns like this are raised. Regular readers of Retraction Watch know that detecting alleged research misconduct is a haphazard affair. Frequently a university will find out about concerns after being notified by research integrity sleuths writing under pseudonyms. In this case, “Cisticola Tinniens” informed us that one of our current MSc students (Benjamin) had an unusually high number of publications for his early career stage, with some highlighted on the PubPeer website as potentially problematic. The first thing we did was to check to see whether our university was named in any of these papers, as clearly institutions do have a responsibility for research attributed to our researchers or students. We found only one of the suspect papers named us directly, and since the work definitely had not occurred at our institution, it was relatively easy to get this affiliation [corrected almost immediately](https://www.pubpeer.com/publications/E3637FC6DBCDC05C830D5157873351#3). [Continue reading Guest post: Should universities investigate questionable papers students and faculty wrote elsewhere?](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/03/guest-post-should-universities-investigate-questionable-papers-students-faculty-wrote-elsewhere/#more-134494) ### Share this: - [Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email](mailto:?subject=%5BShared%20Post%5D%20Guest%20post%3A%20Should%20universities%20investigate%20questionable%20papers%20students%20and%20faculty%20wrote%20elsewhere%3F&body=https%3A%2F%2Fretractionwatch.com%2F2026%2F04%2F03%2Fguest-post-should-universities-investigate-questionable-papers-students-faculty-wrote-elsewhere%2F&share=email&nb=1) - [Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/03/guest-post-should-universities-investigate-questionable-papers-students-faculty-wrote-elsewhere/?share=bluesky&nb=1) - [Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/03/guest-post-should-universities-investigate-questionable-papers-students-faculty-wrote-elsewhere/?share=linkedin&nb=1) - [Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/03/guest-post-should-universities-investigate-questionable-papers-students-faculty-wrote-elsewhere/?share=mastodon&nb=1) - [Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/03/guest-post-should-universities-investigate-questionable-papers-students-faculty-wrote-elsewhere/?share=facebook&nb=1) - [Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/03/guest-post-should-universities-investigate-questionable-papers-students-faculty-wrote-elsewhere/?share=twitter&nb=1) Posted on [April 3, 2026April 2, 2026](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/03/guest-post-should-universities-investigate-questionable-papers-students-faculty-wrote-elsewhere/) Author [Simon Kolstoe](https://retractionwatch.com/author/simonkolstoe/)Categories [guest post](https://retractionwatch.com/category/guest-post/), [misconduct investigations](https://retractionwatch.com/category/by-reason-for-retraction/misconduct-investigations/)[25 Comments on Guest post: Should universities investigate questionable papers students and faculty wrote elsewhere?](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/03/guest-post-should-universities-investigate-questionable-papers-students-faculty-wrote-elsewhere/#comments) ## [Judge tosses lawsuit over controversial Paxil ‘Study 329’](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/02/judge-lawsuit-controversial-adolescents-paxil-study-329/) [![](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/study-329-motion-to-dismiss-tearaway-1024x576.png)](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/study-329-motion-to-dismiss-tearaway.png) A judge has dismissed a legal challenge aimed at forcing Elsevier to retract a long-criticized study that concluded the antidepressant Paxil was safe and effective for teens. The [2001 paper](https://www.jaacap.org/article/S0890-8567$09$60309-9/abstract), published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (JAACAP), has faced scrutiny for more than 20 years by critics who say the study has led to unwarranted and potentially harmful prescribing of the drug to youth. As [we reported last October](https://retractionwatch.com/2025/10/16/controversial-paxil-study-329-earns-expression-of-concern-after-critic-sues-publisher/), the journal placed an [expression of concern](https://www.jaacap.org/article/S0890-8567$25$02107-0/fulltext) on the paper shortly after a lawsuit was filed by attorney George W. Murgatroyd III against the journal’s owner, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), and Elsevier, which publishes the title. In [his complaint](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2025-CAB-005368.pdf), filed in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Murgatroyd claimed the journal is violating the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) by continuing to “publish, distribute, and sell a fraudulent scientific article that contains material facts” that mislead the public and endanger adolescent mental health and safety. AACAP and Elsevier are profiting from the article by charging readers to buy access to the paper, according to the complaint. [Continue reading Judge tosses lawsuit over controversial Paxil ‘Study 329’](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/02/judge-lawsuit-controversial-adolescents-paxil-study-329/#more-134526) ### Share this: - [Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email](mailto:?subject=%5BShared%20Post%5D%20Judge%20tosses%20lawsuit%20over%20controversial%20Paxil%20%E2%80%98Study%20329%E2%80%99&body=https%3A%2F%2Fretractionwatch.com%2F2026%2F04%2F02%2Fjudge-lawsuit-controversial-adolescents-paxil-study-329%2F&share=email&nb=1) - [Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/02/judge-lawsuit-controversial-adolescents-paxil-study-329/?share=bluesky&nb=1) - [Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/02/judge-lawsuit-controversial-adolescents-paxil-study-329/?share=linkedin&nb=1) - [Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/02/judge-lawsuit-controversial-adolescents-paxil-study-329/?share=mastodon&nb=1) - [Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/02/judge-lawsuit-controversial-adolescents-paxil-study-329/?share=facebook&nb=1) - [Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/02/judge-lawsuit-controversial-adolescents-paxil-study-329/?share=twitter&nb=1) Posted on [April 2, 2026April 2, 2026](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/02/judge-lawsuit-controversial-adolescents-paxil-study-329/) Author [Alicia Gallegos](https://retractionwatch.com/author/alicia-gallegos/)Categories [elsevier](https://retractionwatch.com/category/by-publisher/elsevier/), [J Am Acad Child Adoles Psychiatry](https://retractionwatch.com/category/by-journal/j-am-acad-child-adoles-psychiatry/), [psychiatry](https://retractionwatch.com/category/by-subject/clinical-study-retractions/psychiatry-clinical-study-retractions/)[Leave a comment on Judge tosses lawsuit over controversial Paxil ‘Study 329’](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/02/judge-lawsuit-controversial-adolescents-paxil-study-329/#respond) ## [Biology journal ghosts researcher after holding paper hostage](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/01/european-journal-experimental-biology-fee-demand-prime-scholars/) [![](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/european-journal-of-experimental-biology-flyer.jpg)](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/european-journal-of-experimental-biology-flyer.jpg) In a story readers might find familiar, a researcher was asked to pay when he demanded a journal retract an article he had never seen but supposedly wrote — and the journal ghosted him when he refused. In February, [Evgenios Agathokleous](https://www.evgenios.info/), an environmental resources researcher at Nanjing University of Information Science & Technology in China, asked Prime Scholars’ European Journal of Experimental Biology to retract a [2023 article](https://www.primescholars.com/articles/an-indepth-exploration-of-pests-used-on-plants-in-agriculture-and-horticulture-121905.html) that listed him as the sole author. In his email to the journal, he said he had never seen the paper and asked the journal to remove it and publish a formal retraction notice. Two days later, a Prime Scholars representative named Nina responded, telling Agathokleous “your article has already been successfully published in our journal in accordance with the company’s publication norms and policies.” Nina then asked Agathokleous to pay 519 euros, the equivalent of roughly \$600, which they said “covers the costs associated with publication handling, indexing preparation, and database maintenance.” [Continue reading Biology journal ghosts researcher after holding paper hostage](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/01/european-journal-experimental-biology-fee-demand-prime-scholars/#more-134514) ### Share this: - [Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email](mailto:?subject=%5BShared%20Post%5D%20Biology%20journal%20ghosts%20researcher%20after%20holding%20paper%20hostage%C2%A0&body=https%3A%2F%2Fretractionwatch.com%2F2026%2F04%2F01%2Feuropean-journal-experimental-biology-fee-demand-prime-scholars%2F&share=email&nb=1) - [Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/01/european-journal-experimental-biology-fee-demand-prime-scholars/?share=bluesky&nb=1) - [Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/01/european-journal-experimental-biology-fee-demand-prime-scholars/?share=linkedin&nb=1) - [Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/01/european-journal-experimental-biology-fee-demand-prime-scholars/?share=mastodon&nb=1) - [Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/01/european-journal-experimental-biology-fee-demand-prime-scholars/?share=facebook&nb=1) - [Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/01/european-journal-experimental-biology-fee-demand-prime-scholars/?share=twitter&nb=1) Posted on [April 1, 2026April 2, 2026](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/01/european-journal-experimental-biology-fee-demand-prime-scholars/) Author [Avery Orrall](https://retractionwatch.com/author/avery-orrall/)Categories [omics publishing group](https://retractionwatch.com/category/by-publisher/omics-publishing-group/), [refusal to pay fees](https://retractionwatch.com/category/by-reason-for-retraction/refusal-to-pay-fees/)[2 Comments on Biology journal ghosts researcher after holding paper hostage](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/01/european-journal-experimental-biology-fee-demand-prime-scholars/#comments) ## [BMJ retracts cardiac stem cell paper, removes authors months after sleuths flag data ‘mismatch’](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/03/31/bmj-retracts-cardiac-stem-cell-paper-removes-authors-months-after-sleuths-flag-data-mismatch/) [![](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/bmj-prevent-taha8-retraction_rev-1024x618.png)](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/bmj-prevent-taha8-retraction_rev.png) The BMJ has retracted a paper on stem cell therapy for heart failure after [sleuths flagged the work](https://retractionwatch.com/2025/11/06/sleuths-flag-complete-mismatch-in-data-of-bmj-stem-cell-study/) for “serious” inconsistencies in data. Published in October, [the paper](https://www.bmj.com/content/391/bmj-2024-083382) reported the results of a phase III clinical trial of more than 400 patients in Shiraz, Iran, looking at whether stem cell therapy lowers the risk of heart failure after a heart attack. The journal announced the results in a [press release](https://bmjgroup.com/stem-cell-therapy-linked-to-lower-risk-of-heart-failure-after-a-heart-attack/), and news of the findings appeared in several outlets. [New Scientist](https://www.newscientist.com/article/2502081-stem-cell-therapy-lowers-risk-of-heart-failure-after-a-heart-attack/) called the study the “strongest evidence yet that stem cells can help the heart repair itself.” A week after the study was published, sleuths [took to PubPeer](https://pubpeer.com/publications/C08779C45DB6E407DFAC85583BE9C4#1) to point out inconsistencies between the data reported in the article and the [dataset](https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/_b_PREVENT-TAHA8_study_Dataset_Prevention_of_Acute_Myocardial_Infarction-Induced_Heart_Failure_by_Intracoronary_Infusion_of_Mesenchymal_Stem_Cells_A_Phase_III_Randomized_Clinical_Trial_b_/29375153/2?file=55664687) uploaded with it. The concerns included a “curious repeating pattern” of records in the dataset and a high number of integers for the height and weight of patients. [Continue reading BMJ retracts cardiac stem cell paper, removes authors months after sleuths flag data ‘mismatch’](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/03/31/bmj-retracts-cardiac-stem-cell-paper-removes-authors-months-after-sleuths-flag-data-mismatch/#more-134507) ### Share this: - [Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email](mailto:?subject=%5BShared%20Post%5D%20BMJ%20retracts%20cardiac%20stem%20cell%20paper%2C%20removes%20authors%20months%20after%20sleuths%20flag%20data%20%E2%80%98mismatch%E2%80%99&body=https%3A%2F%2Fretractionwatch.com%2F2026%2F03%2F31%2Fbmj-retracts-cardiac-stem-cell-paper-removes-authors-months-after-sleuths-flag-data-mismatch%2F&share=email&nb=1) - [Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/03/31/bmj-retracts-cardiac-stem-cell-paper-removes-authors-months-after-sleuths-flag-data-mismatch/?share=bluesky&nb=1) - [Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/03/31/bmj-retracts-cardiac-stem-cell-paper-removes-authors-months-after-sleuths-flag-data-mismatch/?share=linkedin&nb=1) - [Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/03/31/bmj-retracts-cardiac-stem-cell-paper-removes-authors-months-after-sleuths-flag-data-mismatch/?share=mastodon&nb=1) - [Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/03/31/bmj-retracts-cardiac-stem-cell-paper-removes-authors-months-after-sleuths-flag-data-mismatch/?share=facebook&nb=1) - [Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/03/31/bmj-retracts-cardiac-stem-cell-paper-removes-authors-months-after-sleuths-flag-data-mismatch/?share=twitter&nb=1) Posted on [March 31, 2026April 2, 2026](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/03/31/bmj-retracts-cardiac-stem-cell-paper-removes-authors-months-after-sleuths-flag-data-mismatch/) Author [Avery Orrall](https://retractionwatch.com/author/avery-orrall/)Categories [authorship issues](https://retractionwatch.com/category/by-reason-for-retraction/authorship-issues/), [bmj](https://retractionwatch.com/category/by-journal/bmj/), [data issues](https://retractionwatch.com/category/by-reason-for-retraction/data-issues/)[1 Comment on BMJ retracts cardiac stem cell paper, removes authors months after sleuths flag data ‘mismatch’](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/03/31/bmj-retracts-cardiac-stem-cell-paper-removes-authors-months-after-sleuths-flag-data-mismatch/#comments) ## Posts pagination Page 1 [Page 2](https://retractionwatch.com/page/2/) … [Page 700](https://retractionwatch.com/page/700/) [Next page](https://retractionwatch.com/page/2/) [Privacy policy](https://retractionwatch.com/privacy-policy/) [Proudly powered by WordPress](https://wordpress.org/)
Readable Markdown	[![](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/RCR-framework-proposed-changes-main-1024x576.png)](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/RCR-framework-proposed-changes-main.png) Public comment is [invited](https://rcr.ethics.gc.ca/eng/consultations_proposed-updates_mise-a-jour-proposee_framework-cadre_2021.html) through April 17, 2026. A Canadian panel is proposing several changes to its guidelines for responsible conduct of research, including a provision that effectively removes any statute of limitations on investigations into potential misconduct. The [proposed revisions](https://rcr.ethics.gc.ca/eng/consultations_proposed-updates_mise-a-jour-proposee_framework-cadre_2021.html), from the Canadian Panel on Responsible Conduct of Research (PRCR), are up for public comment until April 17 and have not been made official. The PRCR is an interdisciplinary review and advisory body to Canada’s three federal research funding agencies: the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. [Continue reading Canadian panel seeks to add more teeth to research oversight](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/10/canadian-panel-seeks-to-add-more-teeth-to-research-oversight/#more-134586) [![](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Photo-Mark-Barnes-Ropes-Gray-Health-Care-Partner.jpg)](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Photo-Mark-Barnes-Ropes-Gray-Health-Care-Partner.jpg) Mark Barnes (courtesy of Ropes and Gray LLC) In an [editorial published today](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aeh7187) in Science, Michael Lauer and Mark Barnes call for greater transparency in investigations of scientific misconduct with an aim toward making sure prospective academic employers know of applicants’ past misdeeds. As [we’ve reported](https://undark.org/2018/05/14/scientific-fraud-academic-fraud-universities/), in the absence of transparency around findings of misconduct, some universities have discovered too late they hired someone who has turned out to be a serial offender. Lauer, who served as Deputy Director for Extramural Research at the National Institutes of Health from 2015-2025, and Barnes, a partner at Ropes and Gray LLC in Boston who has served as acting research integrity officer at several U.S. institutions, propose a tracking system similar to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB). That database logs adverse actions and malpractice payments as a way to inform decisions about individual physicians by hospitals. As Lauer and Barnes note, federal law “requires a hospital to query the NPDB whenever it is considering a new applicant for medical privileges, as well as to conduct repeat queries every 2 years to make sure information on staff is up to date.” We asked Barnes to elaborate on the ideas presented in the op-ed. (He notes he is speaking only for himself here.) Retraction Watch: You write in your op-ed universities may avoid sharing personal information — presumably including results of misconduct investigations — for fear of legal claims of defamation or violations of privacy. Are those fears valid? [Continue reading Could a national database of scientific misconduct rulings stop repeat offenders?](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/09/could-a-national-database-of-scientific-misconduct-rulings-stop-repeat-offenders/#more-134576) [![](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/bmc_nephrology.jpg)](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/bmc_nephrology.jpg) As the publishing community debates the merits of [naming sleuths in retraction or correction notices](https://retractionwatch.com/2025/07/30/noticed-sleuths-are-starting-to-get-credit-for-retractions/), one journal did so without the sleuth’s permission — by publishing an email from the authors naming her as the correction notice. The sleuth calls it “ethical editorial malpractice.” The publisher says it was an “administrative error.” After Retraction Watch reached out for comment, the journal removed the text of the email from the correction notice. [The paper](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12882-025-04394-8), on trends in chronic kidney disease in people with lupus, appeared in BMC Nephrology in August. [Continue reading A journal named a sleuth in a correction. The sleuth says that was ‘ethical editorial malpractice’](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/08/bmc-nephrology-journal-named-sleuth-correction-error/#more-134558) [![](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/wolters-kluwer-hq-the-netherlands-2017-hyr-1024x576.jpg)](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/wolters-kluwer-hq-the-netherlands-2017-hyr.jpg) Wolters Kluwer global headquarters in the Netherlands The Dutch publisher Wolters Kluwer has scrapped some of its citation and study-registration requirements at a top-ranked surgery journal founded by the U.K. plastic surgeon Riaz Agha, Retraction Watch has learned. The move follows our investigation last month that found [mandatory citation of reporting guidelines](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/03/12/riaz-agha-international-journal-surgery-research-registry-wolters-kluwer/) developed by Agha and published in the International Journal of Surgery (IJS) had inflated the impact factor of the open-access title, making it more attractive to authors and readers. A blanket requirement to register all human studies before manuscript submission, contrary to recommendations from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, appeared to serve another of Agha’s business interests: [a paid research registry](https://www.researchregistry.com/) he founded in 2015. [Continue reading Publisher changes citation, registration policies following Retraction Watch investigation](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/07/wolters-kluwer-international-journal-surgery-changes-citation-registration-policies/#more-134551) [![](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/pexels-rows-stadium-seats-16-9-1024x576.jpg)](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/pexels-rows-stadium-seats-16-9.jpg) Pexels Markus Englund, a software developer and sleuth based in the Netherlands, first hit paydirt with invasive plant species in China. After having scanned 12 other published scientific datasets with his novel detection software with no results, he [came across](https://pubpeer.com/publications/1FF86EEED4054ECA9E7625F67F79FB) one showing something suspicious: rows and rows of measurements of plant roots repeated across entirely different species. “I was really excited,” he said in a recent call with Retraction Watch. “I couldn’t think of any innocent explanation for why that would be the case.” Englund had built a tool dedicated to “purging” fabricated data by identifying “impossible” data in spreadsheets available on open repositories, according to [Science Detective](https://www.sciencedetective.org/about/), his site about the initiative. From his initial review, he has found 18 datasets containing duplicated values that are possibly serious enough to need correcting — including one from an influential paper on Parkinson’s disease, as The Transmitter recently [reported](https://www.thetransmitter.org/academia/data-duplications-flagged-in-highly-cited-gut-brain-studies/). (Retraction Watch’s cofounder Ivan Oransky is that publication’s editor-in-chief.) [Continue reading Bloodhound code sniffs out copied-and-pasted numerical data](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/06/data-duplications-errors-open-repositories-markus-englund/#more-134534) [![](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/rw-1024x768.jpeg)](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/rw.jpeg) If your week flew by — we know ours did — catch up here with what you might have missed. The week at Retraction Watch featured: - A citation alert led researchers to a network of fake articles. [But who is benefiting](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/03/30/fake-articles-plagiarism-preprints-arxiv-ssrn-citation-network/)? - Jury to decide whether Duke retaliated against researcher who [reported sexual harassment](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/03/31/duke-retaliation-jury-trial-brahmajothi-mulugu-mohamed-abou-donia-sexual-harassment/) - [BMJ retracts cardiac stem cell paper](https://retractionwatch.com/?p=134507), removes authors months after sleuths flag data ‘mismatch’ - Biology journal ghosts researcher after [holding paper hostage](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/01/european-journal-experimental-biology-fee-demand-prime-scholars/) - Judge tosses lawsuit over controversial [Paxil ‘Study 329](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/02/judge-lawsuit-controversial-adolescents-paxil-study-329/)’ - Guest post: Should universities investigate questionable papers students and faculty [wrote elsewhere](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/03/guest-post-should-universities-investigate-questionable-papers-students-faculty-wrote-elsewhere/)? In case you missed [the news](https://retractionwatch.com/2025/12/26/retraction-watch-hijacked-journal-checker-now-has-400-entries/), the [Hijacked Journal Checker](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ak985WGOgGbJRJbZFanoktAN_UFeExpE/edit?gid=5255084#gid=5255084) now has more than 400 entries. The [Retraction Watch Database](https://gitlab.com/crossref/retraction-watch-data) has over 64,000 retractions. Our [list of COVID-19 retractions](https://retractionwatch.com/retracted-coronavirus-covid-19-papers/) is up to 650, and our [mass resignations list](https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-mass-resignations-list/) has more than 50 entries. We keep tabs on all this and more. If you value this work, please consider showing your support with a tax-deductible donation. Every dollar counts. Here’s what was happening elsewhere (some of these items may be paywalled, metered access, or require free registration to read): [Continue reading Weekend reads: Half of social science ‘doesn’t replicate’; ‘Scientific ghosts: Life after retraction’; multisensory learning paper retracted](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/04/weekend-reads-half-social-science-doesnt-replicate-scientific-ghosts-multisensory-learning-paper-retracted/#more-134540) [![](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/magnifying-glass-computer-iStock-1147405001-1024x683.jpg)](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/magnifying-glass-computer-iStock-1147405001.jpg) Be-Art/iStock I am a research ethicist and often get asked by my university to investigate when potential concerns are raised about our staff or students. One example involved the recent case of the alleged paper mill and self-citation activities by [Hitler Louis and Innocent Benjamin](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/02/24/chemist-hitler-louis-nigeria-retractions-image-duplication-self-citation/). The matter raised significant questions about who within the research community has the responsibility to act when concerns like this are raised. Regular readers of Retraction Watch know that detecting alleged research misconduct is a haphazard affair. Frequently a university will find out about concerns after being notified by research integrity sleuths writing under pseudonyms. In this case, “Cisticola Tinniens” informed us that one of our current MSc students (Benjamin) had an unusually high number of publications for his early career stage, with some highlighted on the PubPeer website as potentially problematic. The first thing we did was to check to see whether our university was named in any of these papers, as clearly institutions do have a responsibility for research attributed to our researchers or students. We found only one of the suspect papers named us directly, and since the work definitely had not occurred at our institution, it was relatively easy to get this affiliation [corrected almost immediately](https://www.pubpeer.com/publications/E3637FC6DBCDC05C830D5157873351#3). [Continue reading Guest post: Should universities investigate questionable papers students and faculty wrote elsewhere?](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/03/guest-post-should-universities-investigate-questionable-papers-students-faculty-wrote-elsewhere/#more-134494) [![](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/study-329-motion-to-dismiss-tearaway-1024x576.png)](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/study-329-motion-to-dismiss-tearaway.png) A judge has dismissed a legal challenge aimed at forcing Elsevier to retract a long-criticized study that concluded the antidepressant Paxil was safe and effective for teens. The [2001 paper](https://www.jaacap.org/article/S0890-8567$09$60309-9/abstract), published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (JAACAP), has faced scrutiny for more than 20 years by critics who say the study has led to unwarranted and potentially harmful prescribing of the drug to youth. As [we reported last October](https://retractionwatch.com/2025/10/16/controversial-paxil-study-329-earns-expression-of-concern-after-critic-sues-publisher/), the journal placed an [expression of concern](https://www.jaacap.org/article/S0890-8567$25$02107-0/fulltext) on the paper shortly after a lawsuit was filed by attorney George W. Murgatroyd III against the journal’s owner, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), and Elsevier, which publishes the title. In [his complaint](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2025-CAB-005368.pdf), filed in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Murgatroyd claimed the journal is violating the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) by continuing to “publish, distribute, and sell a fraudulent scientific article that contains material facts” that mislead the public and endanger adolescent mental health and safety. AACAP and Elsevier are profiting from the article by charging readers to buy access to the paper, according to the complaint. [Continue reading Judge tosses lawsuit over controversial Paxil ‘Study 329’](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/02/judge-lawsuit-controversial-adolescents-paxil-study-329/#more-134526) [![](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/european-journal-of-experimental-biology-flyer.jpg)](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/european-journal-of-experimental-biology-flyer.jpg) In a story readers might find familiar, a researcher was asked to pay when he demanded a journal retract an article he had never seen but supposedly wrote — and the journal ghosted him when he refused. In February, [Evgenios Agathokleous](https://www.evgenios.info/), an environmental resources researcher at Nanjing University of Information Science & Technology in China, asked Prime Scholars’ European Journal of Experimental Biology to retract a [2023 article](https://www.primescholars.com/articles/an-indepth-exploration-of-pests-used-on-plants-in-agriculture-and-horticulture-121905.html) that listed him as the sole author. In his email to the journal, he said he had never seen the paper and asked the journal to remove it and publish a formal retraction notice. Two days later, a Prime Scholars representative named Nina responded, telling Agathokleous “your article has already been successfully published in our journal in accordance with the company’s publication norms and policies.” Nina then asked Agathokleous to pay 519 euros, the equivalent of roughly \$600, which they said “covers the costs associated with publication handling, indexing preparation, and database maintenance.” [Continue reading Biology journal ghosts researcher after holding paper hostage](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/04/01/european-journal-experimental-biology-fee-demand-prime-scholars/#more-134514) [![](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/bmj-prevent-taha8-retraction_rev-1024x618.png)](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/bmj-prevent-taha8-retraction_rev.png) The BMJ has retracted a paper on stem cell therapy for heart failure after [sleuths flagged the work](https://retractionwatch.com/2025/11/06/sleuths-flag-complete-mismatch-in-data-of-bmj-stem-cell-study/) for “serious” inconsistencies in data. Published in October, [the paper](https://www.bmj.com/content/391/bmj-2024-083382) reported the results of a phase III clinical trial of more than 400 patients in Shiraz, Iran, looking at whether stem cell therapy lowers the risk of heart failure after a heart attack. The journal announced the results in a [press release](https://bmjgroup.com/stem-cell-therapy-linked-to-lower-risk-of-heart-failure-after-a-heart-attack/), and news of the findings appeared in several outlets. [New Scientist](https://www.newscientist.com/article/2502081-stem-cell-therapy-lowers-risk-of-heart-failure-after-a-heart-attack/) called the study the “strongest evidence yet that stem cells can help the heart repair itself.” A week after the study was published, sleuths [took to PubPeer](https://pubpeer.com/publications/C08779C45DB6E407DFAC85583BE9C4#1) to point out inconsistencies between the data reported in the article and the [dataset](https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/_b_PREVENT-TAHA8_study_Dataset_Prevention_of_Acute_Myocardial_Infarction-Induced_Heart_Failure_by_Intracoronary_Infusion_of_Mesenchymal_Stem_Cells_A_Phase_III_Randomized_Clinical_Trial_b_/29375153/2?file=55664687) uploaded with it. The concerns included a “curious repeating pattern” of records in the dataset and a high number of integers for the height and weight of patients. [Continue reading BMJ retracts cardiac stem cell paper, removes authors months after sleuths flag data ‘mismatch’](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/03/31/bmj-retracts-cardiac-stem-cell-paper-removes-authors-months-after-sleuths-flag-data-mismatch/#more-134507)
Shard	188 (laksa)
Root Hash	7032180137933625188
Unparsed URL	com,retractionwatch!/ s443