Ivermectin-COVID-19 Study Retracted; Authors Blame File Mixup (Medscape)

Medscape: Ivermectin-COVID-19 Study Retracted; Authors Blame File Mixup. “The authors of a study purportedly showing that ivermectin could treat patients with SARS-CoV-2 have retracted their paper after acknowledging that their data were garbled. The paper, ‘Effects of a Single Dose of Ivermectin on Viral and Clinical Outcomes in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infected Subjects: A Pilot Clinical Trial in Lebanon,’ appeared in the journal Viruses in May. ”

Nature: Scammers impersonate guest editors to get sham papers published

Nature: Scammers impersonate guest editors to get sham papers published. “Hundreds of articles published in peer-reviewed journals are being retracted after scammers exploited the processes for publishing special issues to get poor-quality papers — sometimes consisting of complete gibberish — into established journals. In some cases, fraudsters posed as scientists and offered to guest-edit issues that they then filled with sham papers.”

CBC: A Canadian COVID-19 study that turned out to be wrong has spread like wildfire among anti-vaxxers

CBC: A Canadian COVID-19 study that turned out to be wrong has spread like wildfire among anti-vaxxers. “The researchers mistakenly failed to record the accurate number of vaccinations given out during that two-month period, despite the data on total doses being publicly available, and the figure turned out to be astronomically higher than what was presented in the study. Instead of 32,379 mRNA vaccine doses administered in June and July, as the study suggests, there were actually more than 800,000 shots given out at that time, according to Ottawa Public Health. ”

The lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are inherently unreliable (Nature Medicine)

Nature Medicine: The lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are inherently unreliable. “Recently, we described flaws in one randomized control trial of ivermectin, the results of which represented more than 10% of the overall effect in at least two major meta-analyses. We described several irregularities in the data that could not be consistent with them being experimentally derived4. That study has now been withdrawn by the preprint server on which it was hosted. We also raised concerns about unexpected stratification across baseline variables in another randomized controlled trial for ivermectin6, which were highly suggestive of randomization failure.”

Nature: I critiqued my past papers on social media — here’s what I learnt

Nature: I critiqued my past papers on social media — here’s what I learnt. “On Good Friday this year, traditionally a time of self-reflection in the Christian calendar, I began critiquing my own scientific record — writing down something critical about each of my publications. Much of my career, my writing and now my podcast, ‘The Error Bar’, has been spent criticizing others’ work. In 57 tweets… I recalled the worst things about each of my publications.”

STAT News: Lancet, New England Journal retract Covid-19 studies, including one that raised safety concerns about malaria drugs

STAT News: Lancet, New England Journal retract Covid-19 studies, including one that raised safety concerns about malaria drugs. “The Lancet, one of the world’s top medical journals, on Thursday retracted an influential study that raised alarms about the safety of the experimental Covid-19 treatments chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine amid scrutiny of the data underlying the paper. Just over an hour later, the New England Journal of Medicine retracted a separate study, focused on blood pressure medications in Covid-19, that relied on data from the same company.”

Science: Russian journals retract more than 800 papers after ‘bombshell’ investigation

Science: Russian journals retract more than 800 papers after ‘bombshell’ investigation. “Academic journals in Russia are retracting more than 800 papers following a probe into unethical publication practices by a commission appointed by the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS). The moves come in the wake of several other queries suggesting the vast Russian scientific literature is riddled with plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and so-called gift authorship, in which academics become a co-author without having contributed any work. “

JSTOR Daily: An Epidemic of Retractions

JSTOR Daily: An Epidemic of Retractions. “Nicolas Chevassus-au-Louis’s new book, Fraud in the Lab: The High Stakes of Scientific Research (translated by Nicholas Elliott) tackles the issue of scientific fraud head-on, with some tough love for the scientific community. The book should be read by everyone interested in the sciences. Chevassus-au-Louis offers a welcome reminder that scientists are human, too, subject to the temptations of ambition, to career pressures, and to plain old greed.”

Kellogg Insight: Who Gets Blamed When a Group Project Goes Wrong?

Kellogg Insight: Who Gets Blamed When a Group Project Goes Wrong?. “New research into that question calls to mind the curious case of one much-maligned researcher. It began in 1986, when six researchers published a major paper in the journal Cell. Among the authors were a little-known assistant professor named Thereza Imanishi-Kari, who had devised the paper’s central experiment, and Nobel Prize winner David Baltimore. But soon after the paper was published, Imanishi-Kari was accused of falsifying her data.”

Intellectual humility: the importance of knowing you might be wrong (Vox)

Vox: Intellectual humility: the importance of knowing you might be wrong. “Julia Rohrer wants to create a radical new culture for social scientists. A personality psychologist at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Rohrer is trying to get her peers to publicly, willingly admit it when they are wrong. To do this, she, along with some colleagues, started up something called the Loss of Confidence Project. It’s designed to be an academic safe space for researchers to declare for all to see that they no longer believe in the accuracy of one of their previous findings. “

Ars Technica: Information overload study we covered has been retracted

Ars Technica: Information overload study we covered has been retracted. “In 2017, we covered a study that suggested information overload may be responsible for the viral spread of faulty information. The study was based on a mix of modeling of artificial ‘agents’ that forwarded information to their peers, and real-world data obtained from Twitter. In attempting to follow up on their own work, the researchers who produced it discovered two problems: a software bug in their analysis pipeline, and a graph that was produced using invalid data.”

Science Magazine: What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing’s ‘death penalty’

Science Magazine: What a massive database of retracted papers reveals about science publishing’s ‘death penalty’. “Nearly a decade ago, headlines highlighted a disturbing trend in science: The number of articles retracted by journals had increased 10-fold during the previous 10 years. Fraud accounted for some 60% of those retractions; one offender, anesthesiologist Joachim Boldt, had racked up almost 90 retractions after investigators concluded he had fabricated data and committed other ethical violations. Boldt may have even harmed patients by encouraging the adoption of an unproven surgical treatment. Science, it seemed, faced a mushrooming crisis. The alarming news came with some caveats. “

NPR: Story ‘The Man Who Spent $100K To Remove A Lie From Google’ Has Been Retracted

NPR: Story ‘The Man Who Spent $100K To Remove A Lie From Google’ Has Been Retracted. “NPR has retracted the story that was previously on this page because it did not meet our standards. ‘Fairness’ is one of our guiding principles, and to that end we have pledged to ‘make every effort to gather responses from those who are the subjects of criticism.’ In this instance, that did not happen.”

Wired: Retracting Bad Science Doesn’t Make It Disappear

Wired: Retracting Bad Science Doesn’t Make It Disappear. “Scientists form a giant altruistic community. There are turf considerations and funding to compete for, as in any other walk of life, but by and large, scientists are doing what they do because they’re motivated by the greater good, and collaboration is in their DNA. So when a paper is retracted, potentially jeopardizing everything that came after it, the scientific community goes into self-correction mode and pulls all the papers that, at one point or another, directly or indirectly, have made a reference to that work. Right? Until further notice? Not exactly.”