Retraction Watch

Guest post: NIH-funded replication studies are not the answer to the reproducibility crisis in pre-clinical research

*Barbara Smaller/The New Yorker Collection/The Cartoon Bank*

President Trump recently issued an executive order calling for improvement in the reproducibility of scientific research and asking federal agencies to propose how they will make that happen. I imagine that the National Institutes of Health’s response will include replication studies, in which NIH would fund attempts to repeat published experiments from the ground up, to see if they generate consistent results.

Both Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and NIH director Jay Bhattacharya have already proposed such studies with the objective of determining which NIH-funded research findings are reliable. The goals are presumably to boost public trust in science, improve health-policy decision making, and prevent wasting additional funds on research that relies on unreliable findings.

As a former biomedical researcher, editor, and publisher, and a current consultant about image data integrity, I would argue that conducting systematic replication studies of pre-clinical research is neither an effective nor an efficient strategy to achieve the objective of identifying reliable research. Such studies would be an impractical use of NIH funds, especially in the face of extensive proposed budget cuts.

Weekend reads: MAHA report cites nonexistent studies; RFK Jr. threatens publishing access; can ‘zombie papers’ be killed?

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

‘More of the same’: Journals, trade website refuse to correct critiques of book on Alzheimer’s fraud
Meet David Robert Grimes and Mariana Ribeiro, the first two Retraction Watch Sleuths in Residence
IQ study retracted in fallout from decades-old misconduct report. See our previous coverage
Paper on “wokeness” and mental health retracted for political reasons, authors say

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 500. There are more than 59,000 retractions in The Retraction Watch Database — which is now part of Crossref. The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker now contains more than 300 titles. And have you seen our leaderboard of authors with the most retractions lately — or our list of top 10 most highly cited retracted papers? What about The Retraction Watch Mass Resignations List — or our list of nearly 100 papers with evidence they were written by ChatGPT?

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

Paper on “wokeness” and mental health retracted for political reasons, authors say

The authors of an article linking scores on a “wokeness” scale and mental health issues are blaming political bias for the retraction of their paper in March following post-publication peer review.

The article, “Do Conservatives Really Have an Advantage in Mental Health? An Examination of Measurement Invariance,” appeared in the Scandinavian Journal of Psychology last August. It has been cited twice, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science, one being the retraction notice.

“Following publication of this article, concerns were raised by third parties about the conclusions drawn by the authors based on the data provided,” according to the March 26 notice. After investigating, the publisher and the journal “concluded that the article contains major errors involving methods, theory, and normatively biased language,” which “bring into doubt the conclusions drawn by the authors,” the notice stated. The authors disagreed with the decision.

In a blog post, one author, Emil Kirkegaard, called the journal’s action “my first politically motivated retraction.” Kirkegaard’s studies and writings are provocative, on topics including race and IQ.

IQ study retracted in fallout from decades-old misconduct report

The authors of a paper on how motivation influences intelligence test scores have retracted their paper following the retraction of a 50-year-old study included in their analysis.

Part meta-analysis and part longitudinal study, “Role of test motivation in intelligence testing” appeared in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2011. The meta-analysis portion included a 1978 paper by Stephen Breuning, a child psychologist who was the subject of 1987 report from the National Institute of Mental Health that found he “knowingly, willfully, and repeatedly” engaged in research misconduct and fabricated results in 10 NIMH funded articles.

As we reported earlier this year, six of Breuning’s papers have been retracted, including one last December. That article, published in 1978 in the Journal of School Psychology, found record albums, sporting event tickets, portable radios, and other incentives boosted scores on IQ tests.

Meet the first two Retraction Watch Sleuths in Residence

We are thrilled to announce that David Robert Grimes and Mariana Ribeiro will join the Retraction Watch team as Sleuths in Residence starting June 1.

Earlier this year we announced the Sleuth in Residence Program, an opportunity for active sleuths to have a secure and paid position while working closely with our research team on specific projects, and with our journalism team to publish their findings. Our goal is to build capacity in this space to emphasize the value of compensating and protecting the critical work of sleuths.

We’re pleased to be able to bring on two Sleuths in Residence as part of this effort.

‘More of the same’: Journals, trade website refuse to correct critiques of book on Alzheimer’s fraud

Amyloid-beta plaques (brown) and tau protein tangles (blue). Credit: National Institute on Aging/NIH

Investigative journalist Charles Piller’s latest book, Doctored: Fraud, Arrogance, and Tragedy in the Quest to Cure Alzheimer’s, came out in February. It details the work of Matthew Schrag, a neurologist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., and other sleuths who uncovered evidence of problems in hundreds of research papers about the neurologic condition.

Most reviews and coverage have been positive, Piller said. But some Alzheimer’s researchers have criticized the book in reviews published in JAMA, The Lancet Neurology, and the website Alzforum, which hosts news and commentary on Alzheimer’s research.

Piller and Schrag say they respect that others are entitled to their opinions, but expressed concern that some of these reviews contain inaccuracies that downplay their findings. And the journals and Alzforum have refused to publish responses they submitted or make corrections they requested.

Weekend reads: French agency’s research director sanctioned; AI data woes at MIT; is disruptive science over?

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

Scopus indexed a journal with a fake editorial board and a sham archive. When we asked them about it, they removed it.
Can a better ID system for authors, reviewers and editors reduce fraud? STM thinks so.
Correction finally issued seven years after authors promise fix ‘as soon as possible.’
Researchers to pull duplicate submission after reviewer concerns and Retraction Watch inquiry.
Genentech authors flip PNAS study from corrected to retracted following Retraction Watch coverage.

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

Genentech authors flip PNAS study from corrected to retracted following Retraction Watch coverage

The authors of a 2006 paper have retracted their article following an extensive correction in January – and a Retraction Watch story noting the correction missed at least one additional issue with the work.

“Death-receptor activation halts clathrin-dependent endocytosis,” published in July 2006 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, has been cited 99 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. Most of the authors were affiliated with the biotech company Genentech.

As we previously reported, commenters on PubPeer raised issues about possible image duplications, spurring the authors to review the work. The January correction addressed about two dozen instances of image splicing and duplication in five of the paper’s figures. The notice stated the authors repeated the experiments for a manuscript posted on bioRxiv in October 2024. “The new data confirms the original results, reaffirming the experimental conclusions,” the authors wrote in the correction notice.

Researchers to pull duplicate submission after reviewer concerns and Retraction Watch inquiry

While doing a literature review earlier this spring, a human factors researcher came across a paper he had peer-reviewed. One problem: He had reviewed it – and recommended against publishing – for a different journal not long before the publication date of the paper he was now looking at.

Based on the published paper and documents shared with us, it appears the authors submitted the same manuscript to the journals Applied Sciences and Virtual Reality within 11 days of each other, and withdrew one version when the other was published.

And after we reached out to the authors, the lead author told us they plan to withdraw the published version next week – which the editor of the journal had called for in April but its publisher, MDPI, had not yet decided to do.

Correction finally issued seven years after authors promise fix ‘as soon as possible’

A journal has finally issued a correction following a seven-year-old exchange on PubPeer in which the authors promised to fix issues “as soon as possible.” But after following up with the authors and the journal, it’s still not clear where the delay occurred.

Neuron published the paper, “Common DISC1 Polymorphisms Disrupt Wnt/GSK3β Signaling and Brain Development,” in 2011. It has been cited 101 times, 28 of which came after concerns were first raised, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.

It first appeared on PubPeer in April 2018, when commenter Epipactis voethii first pointed out figures 2 and 3 of the paper had potential image duplication.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: