‘The situation has become appalling’: fake scientific papers push research credibility to crisis point; The Guardian, February 3, 2024

 Robin McKie, The Guardian; ‘The situation has become appalling’: fake scientific papers push research credibility to crisis point

"Tens of thousands of bogus research papers are being published in journals in an international scandal that is worsening every year, scientists have warned. Medical research is being compromised, drug development hindered and promising academic research jeopardised thanks to a global wave of sham science that is sweeping laboratories and universities.

Last year the annual number of papers retracted by research journals topped 10,000 for the first time. Most analysts believe the figure is only the tip of an iceberg of scientific fraud."

Canadian Medical Association leaves international group after president plagiarizes past president’s speech; Retraction Watch, October 8, 2018

Retraction Watch; Canadian Medical Association leaves international group after president plagiarizes past president’s speech

 

[Kip Currier: Quick question: How do you know if the scientific papers you're reading, and perhaps relying upon, represent "good" science or have been discredited? Enter Retraction Watch.

While working on a Research Misconduct chapter for my ethics textbook, I was reminded of Retraction Watch from one of my Information Ethics course's lectures. Retraction Watch is a project of its parent organization, The Center for Scientific Integrity, a 501(c)(3) non-profit, supported by grants like the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

The Mission of The Center for Scientific Integrity is "to promote transparency and integrity in science and scientific publishing, and to disseminate best practices and increase efficiency in science."

One of the Center's 4 goals is a freely accessible "database of retractions, expressions of concern and related publishing events, generated by the work of Retraction Watch."

Exploring some of the content areas on the Retraction Watch site, I was enticed to check out the so-called "Retraction Watch Leaderboard"--billed by Retraction Watch as their "unofficial list" ranking individuals by the number of papers that have been retracted. Not a list one wants to make! An interesting gender-based observation by Retraction Watch, which bears further study and elucidation:

"We note that all of the top 30 are men, which agrees with the general findings of a 2013 paper suggesting that men are more likely to have papers retracted for fraud."

Another good-to-know-about section of Retraction Watch is its "Top 10 Most Highly Cited Retracted Papers"...Here's looking at you, Andrew Wakefield--still "in the house", presently at #2, for your 1998 invalidated autism/vaccines paper co-authored with 12 other researchers (!), not retracted until 12 years later in 2010 (!), and, as of October 9, 2018, cited 499 times after retraction (!):

"Ever curious which retracted papers have been most cited by other scientists? Below, we present the list of the 10 most highly cited retractions. Readers will see some familiar entries, such as the infamous Lancet paper by Andrew Wakefield that originally suggested a link between autism and childhood vaccines. You’ll note that many papers — including the #1 most cited paper — received more citations after they were retracted, which research has shown is an ongoing problem."

Retraction Watch also reports examples of plagiarism, as evinced by this October 8, 2018 story about the incoming World Medical Association (WMA) President, Leonid Eidelman, delivering a speech that was, allegedly, a "mashup" of remarks from the 2014 past WMA President's speech to the WMA, an MIT press release, and a telemedicine company's website. Quite a patchwork quilt of "creative" unattributed sourcing. Canadian Medical Association leaves international group after president plagiarizes past president’s speech."]

Dozens of recent clinical trials may contain wrong or falsified data, claims study; Guardian, June 5, 2017

Stephen Buranyi and Hannah Devlin, Guardian; Dozens of recent clinical trials may contain wrong or falsified data, claims study

"The analysis was carried out by John Carlisle, a consultant anaesthetist at Torbay Hospital, who previously used similar statistical tools to expose one of the most egregious cases of scientific fraud on record, involving a Japanese anaesthesiologist who was found to have fabricated data in many of his 183 retracted scientific papers.

In the latest study, Carlisle reviewed data from 5,087 clinical trials published during the past 15 years in two prestigious medical journals, Jama and the New England Journal of Medicine, and six anaesthesia journals. In total, 90 published trials had underlying statistical patterns that were unlikely to appear by chance in a credible dataset, the review concluded.

“This raises serious questions about data in some studies,” said Carlisle. “Innocent or not, the rate of error is worrying as we determine how to treat patients based upon this evidence,” he added.

Dr Andrew Klein, the editor-in-chief of Anaesthesia, which has published the new analysis, called for the studies identified as potentially flawed to be reviewed urgently.

“It’s very scary that we may be treating patients based on false evidence.” he said. “It may be the case that certain treatments may need to be withdrawn from use.”"

Robert De Niro Defends Screening of Anti-Vaccine Film at Tribeca Festival; New York Times, 3/25/16

Pam Belluck and Melena Ryzik, New York Times; Robert De Niro Defends Screening of Anti-Vaccine Film at Tribeca Festival:

"In a decision that has dredged up the widely debunked link between vaccines and autism, the Tribeca Film Festival plans to screen a film by a discredited former doctor whose research caused widespread alarm about the issue.

The film, “Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe,” is directed and co-written by Andrew Wakefield, an anti-vaccination activist and an author of a study — published in the British medical journal The Lancet, in 1998 — that was retracted in 2010. In addition to the retraction of the study, which involved 12 children, Britain’s General Medical Council, citing ethical violations and a failure to disclose financial conflicts of interest, revoked Mr. Wakefield’s medical license.

On the festival’s website, the biographical material about Mr. Wakefield does not mention that he was stripped of his license or that his Lancet study was retracted. Rather, it says that the Lancet study “would catapult Wakefield into becoming one of the most controversial figures in the history of medicine.”...

The plan to show the film has unnerved and angered doctors, infectious disease experts and even other filmmakers.

“Unless the Tribeca Film Festival plans to definitively unmask Andrew Wakefield, it will be yet another disheartening chapter where a scientific fraud continues to occupy a spotlight and overshadows the damage he has left behind in the important story of vaccine safety and success,” Dr. Mary Anne Jackson, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, said in an email.

The documentary filmmaker Penny Lane (“Our Nixon”) published on Thursday an open letter to the festival’s organizers in Filmmaker Magazine, suggesting that including “Vaxxed” in the documentary section “threatens the credibility of not just the other filmmakers in your doc slate, but the field in general.”"

Japanese Anesthesiologist Completely Faked 172 Papers; PopSci, 7/3/12

Bob Nosowitz, PopSci; Japanese Anesthesiologist Completely Faked 172 Papers:

"Scientific papers are faked sometimes. That's obviously dangerous, especially when the researcher works for the pharmaceutical industry or has a clear agenda. But we've never seen anything quite like this: a Japanese anesthesiologist named Yoshitaka Fujii has been found to have fabricated a hundred and seventy-two papers over the course of 19 years, more than even Joachim Boldt, who fabricated 90.

As reported by Science Insider, Fujii's work included 126 instances of completely fabricated studies and trials. (Of his other work, only three papers were proven legitimate; 37 could not be proven either way.) Some scientists listed as co-authors on his work were never even consulted, and their signatures forged. Patients were invented."

[Podcast] If Science Takes A Wrong Turn, Who Rights It? ; NPR's Talk of the Nation, 8/5/11

[Podcast] Ira Flatow, NPR's Talk of the Nation: If Science Takes A Wrong Turn, Who Rights It? :

"Science is often idealized as a self-correcting system. But how often—and how quickly—is bad science set straight? Ira Flatow and guests discuss recent cases of scientific fraud that have led to retractions of journal studies, and whether human study volunteers have been harmed by bogus science."

[Podcast] Seth Mnookin on The Panic Virus; NPR's On the Media, 1/7/11

[Podcast] NPR's On the Media; Seth Mnookin on The Panic Virus:

"This week the British Medical Journal concluded an extensive investigation into a study that claimed a link between childhood vaccination and autism. Their conclusion? The study WAS A FRAUD. And yet, after a decade of no convincing evidence of a link, the panic remains and vaccination rates are down. Seth Mnookin, author of The Panic Virus, explains why it’s so hard to dislodge misinformation and fear."