A citation manipulation scheme so easy, even a cat can do it.

Reese Richardson

Before we get to the adventures of

 Felis domesticus scholasticus

promised by the title, some important background. A couple of weeks ago, Nick Wise showed me an advertisement from a paper mill offering to boost the buyer’s citation count and h-index on their Google Scholar profile. The advertisement links to several success stories consisting of unredacted “before” and “after” screenshots of clients’ Google Scholar profiles.

Engineering the world’s highest cited cat, Larry

Collecting arguments on the stigma surrounding retraction

*Header image by Sydney Richardson.*

On June 5, head of Research Integrity and Resolutions at Springer Nature
[Tim Kersjes](https://twitter.com/TimKersjes) presented "Requiem for the
Retraction: why proposals for 'honest retractions' fail in their
objective to promote and encourage the self-correction of science" at
the 2024 World Conference on Research Integrity (WCRI).

Included was the following slide, later shared by [Maria
Zalm](https://x.com/MariaZalm/status/1798304619288047661), senior editor
and team manager of Publication Ethics at PLOS:

<figure class="wp-block-image size-large">
<img
src="https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/cropped.jpg?w=1024"
class="wp-image-269" data-attachment-id="269"
data-permalink="https://reeserichardson.blog/2024/06/18/how-shameful-should-retraction-be/cropped/"
data-orig-file="https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/cropped.jpg"
data-orig-size="1955,1100" data-comments-opened="1" data-image-meta="{"
aperture":"0","credit":"","camera":"","caption":"","created_timestamp":"0","copyright":"","focal_length":"0","iso":"0","shutter_speed":"0","title":"","orientation":"0"}"=""
data-image-title="cropped" data-image-description=""
data-image-caption=""
data-medium-file="https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/cropped.jpg?w=300"
data-large-file="https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/cropped.jpg?w=1024"
tabindex="0" role="button" loading="lazy" width="1024" height="576" />
<figcaption>Slide from Tim Kersjes’ talk at WCRI
2024.</figcaption>
</figure>

> More retraction positivity, less retraction shaming
>
> More and more and more and more
>
> **You want science to be more self-correcting? Stop retraction
> shaming!**
>
> Retractions are normal part of academic publishing and that is **[a
> good thing]{.underline}**
>
> Emphasize that retractions are a signal that editors and publishers
> **[are taking their responsibility]{.underline}**
>
> **[Be careful to jump to conclusions]{.underline}** when you see that
> an article is retracted
>
> Encourage editors to consider that retractions are **[a great
> way]{.underline}** to correct the published record
>
> More importantly: emphasize to authors that they are **[not being
> punished]{.underline}**

Reactions followed. Pseudonymous sleuth
[Morty](https://twitter.com/mortenoxe/status/1798771972555366889) said:

> If this is the final conclusion from \#WCRI2024, so help us God. Most
> of the retractions is due to research misconduct. We need more shaming
> of scientists who commit research misconduct!

Reproducibility researcher and science writer [James
Heathers](https://twitter.com/jamesheathers/status/1801764730031284493)
said:

> I was just thinking about 'stop retraction-shaming' today. While
> reading a 15 month old email thread pleading with an editor to retract
> clearly falsified medical papers.

Sleuth and founder of the 5GH Foundation [WU
Guangheng](https://twitter.com/Dr_5GH/status/1798410890125213868) said:

> We do NOT agree. Honest errors have a very small number, but hundreds
> of thousands of misconduct cases are waiting publishers to handle.
> Both PLoS and Springer Nature should take more effort to "clean up"
> their history, and \[quickly respond\] to new cases.

Maria Zalm
[responded](https://x.com/MariaZalm/status/1798830107425157549):

> To clarify, \[Tim Kersjes\] and I are not suggesting that fraudulent
> research should not be retracted, but rather that unreliable articles
> should be retracted REGARDLESS of misconduct findings.
>
> ...
>
> \[If\] we are truly serious about correcting the scientific
> literature, we need to encourage people to retract their own
> erroneous/unrepeatable results, and this won't happen as long as there
> is such a huge \[stigma\] around all retractions.

Other have written at length about the stigma surrounding retractions:

1. [Ending the retraction stigma: Encouraging the reporting of errors
 in the biomedical record](https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016118802970)
2. [Breaking the stigma of
 retraction](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01266-7)
3. [Retraction Stigma and its Communication via Retraction
 Notices](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-022-09465-w)

In my own research and in discussions with others, I have encountered
compelling arguments both for why retraction should be more stigmatized
and why retraction should be less stigmatized. I have yet to form a
coherent opinion myself. Here, I wanted to collect and discuss these
arguments to aid my own understanding and invite arguments from others.

We should first frame this debate in terms of a common value: the
essentiality of retractions. Most observers will agree that retractions
are an indispensable part of the scientific process and that it is a
good thing when an unreliable paper is retracted. Most observers will
agree that even though retraction is becoming [increasingly
frequent](https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03974-8), not enough papers
are retracted and retractions often take far too long. One might argue
that retraction is not an essential part of science publishing (see
["Science is a strong-link
problem"](https://www.experimental-history.com/p/science-is-a-strong-link-problem)
by psychologist Adam Mastroianni), but we need to stick to one framework
by which we can judge our arguments. Thus, we should prefer a position
that improves the efficiency and integrity of retraction as a research
publishing practice.

### Position A: Retractions should be more stigmatized {#position-a-retractions-should-be-more-stigmatized .wp-block-heading}

###### Contention A1: Most retractions are due to misconduct and misconduct should be shameful {#contention-a1-most-retractions-are-due-to-misconduct-and-misconduct-should-be-shameful .wp-block-heading}

Observers agree that most retractions are the result of research
misconduct on the part of one or more authors ([Fang et
al.](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212247109), [Freijedo-Farinas et
al.](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-04992-7), [Grieneisen and
Zhang](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044118)). Many retractions
are now the result of particularly egregious forms of misconduct like
paper milling or other systematic research fraud. Research misconduct
should not be tolerated. As such, instances of misconduct should be met
with scorn for the sake of punitive and preventive justice.

There is some evidence that retraction shaming, as an attitudinal
implementation of preventive justice, would work as a deterrent against
research misconduct. [Chen et
al.](https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05277-6) report that lower
perceived consequences were positively associated with self-reporting of
research misconduct in a large sample of Chinese physicians. [Martinson
et al.](https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2006.1.1.51) suggest that
scientists' perceptions of organizational injustice may also contribute
to misconduct.

###### Contention A2: Shameless repeat offenders will continue their careers {#contention-a2-shameless-repeat-offenders-will-continue-their-careers .wp-block-heading}

Researchers that have published retracted work can and do lose their
jobs and access to funding, even without official findings of misconduct
from their employers. However, if employers are not diligent in their
background checks or simply do not care, the most ignominious offenders
might be able to keep their jobs or move onto new ones and continue
recklessly polluting the scientific record. I surmise that researchers
that are comfortable violating ethical norms of scientific conduct would
also be more likely to violate professional and personal ethical norms.

Shame should be used to prevent these individuals from continuing to
climb the ranks for protection of the scientific record and possibly the
protection of violators' colleagues, students and patients. An official
finding of misconduct will most likely not appear in a Google search of
a quack doctor's name. A tweet will.

###### Contention A3: Shame is all we have {#contention-a3-shame-is-all-we-have .wp-block-heading}

Retractions happen very infrequently; there were about 10,000 published
retractions to about 10,000,000 published peer-reviewed articles in 2023
(a 1:1,000 ratio). Many retracted articles are not prominently labelled
as retracted by the publisher [despite COPE
guidelines](https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4). Lots of retracted
articles will continue to be cited as if they were not retracted (see
[Hsiao and Schneider](https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00155)). Moreover,
retracted articles are still counted towards bibliometrics like h-index
and citation count in most databases. Beyond retraction, individual
sanctions are exceedingly infrequent. For instance, the [US Department
of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity
sanctions](https://ori.hhs.gov/content/case_summary) on the order of 10
individuals every year, often fewer. University investigations often
close without official misconduct findings even as retractions mount.

If these formal measures are woefully insufficient for addressing
research misconduct, we should practice shame as a low-cost and scalable
alternative.

### Position B: Retractions should be less stigmatized {#position-b-retractions-should-be-less-stigmatized .wp-block-heading}

###### Contention B1: Retraction stigma could prevent self-reported retractions {#contention-b1-retraction-stigma-could-prevent-self-reported-retractions .wp-block-heading}

In most cases, authors will be those that most completely understand the
content of their scientific work. Thus, authors are among the
best-prepared to spot errors in their work and move to correct or
retract. A heavy stigma and career penalty associated with retractions,
real or perceived, could discourage authors from retracting their own
work. This might explain why so few retractions are associated with
honest error, as mentioned in Contention A1.

In 2020, Chemistry Nobel laureate Frances Arnold retracted a [2019
*Science* article](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw9068) she
authored,
[noting](https://retractionwatch.com/2020/01/02/nobel-winner-retracts-paper-from-science/):

> For my first work-related tweet of 2020, I am totally bummed to
> announce that we have retracted last year's paper on enzymatic
> synthesis of beta-lactams. The work has not been reproducible.
>
> It is painful to admit, but important to do so. I apologize to all. I
> was a bit busy when this was submitted, and did not do my job well.

Many commentators (rightfully, in my opinion) celebrated Arnold's
transparency and proactiveness. Early-career researchers without a Nobel
prize or a well-earned reputation might be more reluctant to follow this
path exactly because of the perceived personal cost.

###### Contention B2: Retraction stigma impedes the retraction process {#contention-b2-retraction-stigma-impedes-the-retraction-process .wp-block-heading}

Authors will often mount vicious defenses against criticisms and
investigations of their work that could end in retraction. The
perception that a retraction will bring public and personal shame will
undoubtedly fuel this behavior. The threat of shame can prompt authors
to launch lawsuits, spout vitriol or not cooperate with investigations
by journals and employers, tying up proceedings and delaying retractions
for years. James Heathers is not alone in his 15-month quest to get a
paper retracted---experienced sleuths will have endured innumerable
prolonged matches of back-and-forth with editors and authors. Fear of
getting tangled up in these matches will also discourage observers from
reporting errors in the first place.

Editors will be similarly disincentivized against initiating
investigations and executing retractions by the perception of shame. No
editor would want the name of their journal besmirched by calling
attention to a problematic paper with a retraction. Similarly, editors
will want to maintain professional relationships with prestigious
researchers. This is hard to do if the editor is perceived as an agent
of a humiliating witch hunt.

###### Contention B3: Shame can be misdirected {#contention-b3-shame-can-be-misdirected .wp-block-heading}

Retraction notices rarely assign blame for mistakes or misconduct. Many
retraction notices are cartoonishly opaque (e.g. ["\[the\] article...has
been voluntarily retracted by the authors due to a 'non-scientific
reason'"](https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.201700932RRRET)). As a result, it
is very difficult for readers to properly evaluate where shame should be
directed or if it should be employed at all. Obscurant practices by
institutional committees charged with investigating misconduct compound
this difficulty. In this fog, there is always a strong possibility that
the innocent will be targeted for shaming and the guilty will escape
ire.

Junior researchers are already the most likely to shoulder the brunt of
retraction's consequences. [Jin et
al.](https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00780) found that citation losses to
prior works by an author following a retraction of their work are far
less severe for eminent authors. The citation penalty on prior work
(previously described [by the same
team](https://doi.org/10.1038/srep03146)) also implies that other,
unimpeachable work by a group of authors will earn fewer citations
following the retraction of one of their otherwise unrelated articles.
In essence, shame might cause us to disregard valuable work.

How much collateral damage should the scientific community tolerate in
the name of punishing misdeeds?

###### Contention B4: There is not enough shame to go around {#contention-b4-there-is-not-enough-shame-to-go-around .wp-block-heading}

Attention spans are limited. Cultural memory can be short. Even the most
tireless cranks must eventually stop ringing the alarm. There are
undoubtedly tens of thousands of scientific fraudsters out there who
deserve to lose face and never will simply because shame is
rate-limited.

In our cultural context, this also means that the most shame will be
reserved for the most scandalous cases. Hence, headlines will abound for
one [AI-generated rat
penis](https://youtu.be/Bj8IAoTnyNw?si=dViOmf0ZYMm-eGuV) but a case of
[more than 50 medical studies with faked
authorship](https://retractionwatch.com/2024/01/26/journal-retracts-more-than-50-studies-from-saudi-arabia-for-faked-authorship/)
will get comparatively little attention. If we aim the weapon of shame
selectively and illogically, we should hesitate to wield it.

### Position C: We are asking the wrong question {#position-c-we-are-asking-the-wrong-question .wp-block-heading}

The more practically-minded among us will note that we are debating
attitudinal solutions to what is clearly a structural problem.

Not only do these solutions have duller teeth than sweeping systemic
changes, but no one has the authority to force a cultural change in how
something is stigmatized. As retractions become more frequent, it is
also difficult to predict how that stigma might change on its own. We
should direct our effort towards reshaping scientific institutions for
organizational justice instead of litigating how scientists should feel
about science integrity measures.

### What are your thoughts? {#what-are-your-thoughts .wp-block-heading}

Feel free to share your thoughts and arguments for or against retraction
shaming in the comments on this post. As retractions grow exponentially,
discussions like these will shape the future of scientific publishing
and may alter the character of 'self-correction' as a scientific maxim.

Header image by Sydney Richardson.

On June 5, head of Research Integrity and Resolutions at Springer Nature Tim Kersjes presented “Requiem for the Retraction: why proposals for ‘honest retractions’ fail in their objective to promote and encourage the self-correction of science” at the 2024 World Conference on Research Integrity (WCRI). Included was the following slide, later shared by Maria Zalm, senior editor and team manager of

How shameful should retraction be?

Could the fraudulent work of one researcher be responsible for the rise of curcumin research?

Bharat B. Aggarwal is an Indian-American biochemist who worked at MD
Anderson Cancer Center from 1989 to 2015. His research focused on
potential anti-cancer effects and therapeutic applications of herbs and
spices. Aggarwal was particularly drawn to curcumin, a non-toxic
compound found in turmeric that has long been staple in Ayurvedic
systems of medicine. He authored more than 120 articles about the
compound from 1994 to 2020. These articles reported that curcumin had
therapeutic potential for a variety of diseases, including various
cancers, Alzheimer's disease and, more recently, COVID-19. In his 2011
book [*Healing Spices: How to Use 50 Everyday and Exotic Spices to Boost
Health and Beat
Disease*](https://www.amazon.com/Healing-Spices-Everyday-Exotic-Disease/dp/1402776632),
Aggarwal recommends "taking a daily 500 mg curcumin supplement for
general health".

<figure class="wp-block-image size-large">
<img
src="https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/curcumin_and_turmeric.png?w=1024"
class="wp-image-72" data-attachment-id="72"
data-permalink="https://reeserichardson.blog/2024/01/30/the-king-of-curcumin-a-case-study-in-the-consequences-of-large-scale-research-fraud/curcumin_and_turmeric/"
data-orig-file="https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/curcumin_and_turmeric.png"
data-orig-size="1292,454" data-comments-opened="1" data-image-meta="{"
aperture":"0","credit":"","camera":"","caption":"","created_timestamp":"0","copyright":"","focal_length":"0","iso":"0","shutter_speed":"0","title":"","orientation":"0"}"=""
data-image-title="curcumin_and_turmeric" data-image-description=""
data-image-caption=""
data-medium-file="https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/curcumin_and_turmeric.png?w=300"
data-large-file="https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/curcumin_and_turmeric.png?w=1024"
tabindex="0" role="button" loading="lazy"
srcset="https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/curcumin_and_turmeric.png?w=1022 1022w, https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/curcumin_and_turmeric.png?w=150 150w, https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/curcumin_and_turmeric.png?w=300 300w, https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/curcumin_and_turmeric.png?w=768 768w, https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/curcumin_and_turmeric.png 1292w"
sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" width="1024" height="359" />
<figcaption>Left: Chemical structure of curcumin in its keto form.
Right: turmeric powder.</figcaption>
</figure>

MD Anderson Cancer Center initially appeared to be fully on board with
Aggarwal's work. At one point, their website's FAQ page recommended
visitors buy curcumin wholesale from a company for which Aggarwal was a
paid speaker [(see "Spice Healer", *Scientific
American*)](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/spice-healer/).
However, in 2012 (following observations of image manipulation raised by
pseudonymous sleuth [Juuichi
Jigen](http://md-anderson-cc.blogspot.com/)), MD Anderson Cancer Center
launched a research fraud probe against Aggarwal which eventually led to
30 of Aggarwal's articles being retracted. Only some of these studies
were about curcumin specifically, but most concerned similar natural
products.

Retractions rarely number this high for a single author; according to
the [Retraction Watch
leaderboard](https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-leaderboard/),
only 26 other people have authored this many retracted studies.
Aggarwal's retracted articles feature dozens of instances of spliced
Western blots and duplicated images, as well as several instances where
mice were implanted with tumors exceeding volumes considered ethical.
[PubPeer commenters](https://pubpeer.com/search?q=Bharat+Aggarwal) have
noted irregularities in many publications beyond the 30 that have
already been retracted. Aggarwal retired from M.D. Anderson in 2015, but
has continued to author articles and appear at conferences.

<figure class="wp-block-image size-large is-resized">
<img
src="https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/aggarwal_presentation.png?w=1024"
class="wp-image-74" style="width:620px;height:auto"
data-attachment-id="74"
data-permalink="https://reeserichardson.blog/2024/01/30/the-king-of-curcumin-a-case-study-in-the-consequences-of-large-scale-research-fraud/aggarwal_presentation/"
data-orig-file="https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/aggarwal_presentation.png"
data-orig-size="1294,339" data-comments-opened="1" data-image-meta="{"
aperture":"0","credit":"","camera":"","caption":"","created_timestamp":"0","copyright":"","focal_length":"0","iso":"0","shutter_speed":"0","title":"","orientation":"0"}"=""
data-image-title="aggarwal_presentation" data-image-description=""
data-image-caption=""
data-medium-file="https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/aggarwal_presentation.png?w=300"
data-large-file="https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/aggarwal_presentation.png?w=1024"
tabindex="0" role="button" loading="lazy"
srcset="https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/aggarwal_presentation.png?w=1024 1024w, https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/aggarwal_presentation.png?w=150 150w, https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/aggarwal_presentation.png?w=300 300w, https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/aggarwal_presentation.png?w=768 768w, https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/aggarwal_presentation.png 1294w"
sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" width="1024" height="268" />
<figcaption>Aggarwal citing a 2017 paper he wrote, <a
href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2018.00400/full">retracted
in 2018</a>, in a 2022 <a
href="https://youtu.be/0e5Zn62IE_M?t=1854">conference
presentation</a>.</figcaption>
</figure>

Curcumin doesn't work well as a therapeutic agent for any disease.
Though it is safe for human consumption in most forms and will show
activity in essentially any in vitro assay you throw at it (via a
process known as [assay
interference](https://doi.org/10.1021/acschembio.7b00903)), no
well-powered clinical trials have ever found it to be an effective
medicine. Consider the following summary from [Nelson et al.
2017](https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jmedchem.6b00975):

> "\[No\] form of curcumin, or its closely related analogues, appears to
> possess the properties required for a good drug candidate (chemical
> stability, high water solubility, potent and selective target
> activity, high bioavailability, broad tissue distribution, stable
> metabolism, and low toxicity). The in vitro interference properties of
> curcumin do, however, offer many traps that can trick unprepared
> researchers into misinterpreting the results of their investigations."

Despite curcumin's apparent lack of therapeutic promise, the [volume of
research produced on
curcumin](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=%28curcumin%5BTitle%2FAbstract%5D%29&sort=date&size=200)
grows each year.  More than 2,000 studies involving the compound are
published annually. [Many of these studies bear signs of fraud and
involvement of paper
mills.](https://pubpeer.com/search?q=%22curcumin%22) As of 2020, the
United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) has spent more than
150 million USD funding projects related to curcumin. Funding increased
drastically in the 2007 fiscal year, shortly after Aggarwal began to
publish in earnest about the compound and the same year he declared
curcumin ["the Indian solid
gold"](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-46401-5_1).

<figure class="wp-block-image size-large">
<img
src="https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/curcumin_aggarwal_story_230913.png?w=1024"
class="wp-image-79" data-attachment-id="79"
data-permalink="https://reeserichardson.blog/2024/01/30/the-king-of-curcumin-a-case-study-in-the-consequences-of-large-scale-research-fraud/curcumin_aggarwal_story_230913/"
data-orig-file="https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/curcumin_aggarwal_story_230913.png"
data-orig-size="2078,1437" data-comments-opened="1" data-image-meta="{"
aperture":"0","credit":"","camera":"","caption":"","created_timestamp":"0","copyright":"","focal_length":"0","iso":"0","shutter_speed":"0","title":"","orientation":"0"}"=""
data-image-title="curcumin_aggarwal_story_230913"
data-image-description="" data-image-caption=""
data-medium-file="https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/curcumin_aggarwal_story_230913.png?w=300"
data-large-file="https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/curcumin_aggarwal_story_230913.png?w=1024"
tabindex="0" role="button" loading="lazy"
srcset="https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/curcumin_aggarwal_story_230913.png?w=1024 1024w, https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/curcumin_aggarwal_story_230913.png?w=2048 2048w, https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/curcumin_aggarwal_story_230913.png?w=150 150w, https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/curcumin_aggarwal_story_230913.png?w=300 300w, https://reeserichardson.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/curcumin_aggarwal_story_230913.png?w=768 768w"
sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" width="1024" height="708" />
<figcaption>Graphs describing the volume of curcumin research from
various sources. Data collected from PubMed and NIH RePORTER. Data may
be incomplete in recent years.</figcaption>
</figure>

This proliferation of research on curcumin has fueled its popularity as
a dietary supplement. Grand View Research estimated the global market
for curcumin as a pharmaceutical to be around [30
million](https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/turmeric-extract-curcumin-market)
USD in 2020. Manufacturers are [routinely scolded by the United States
Food and Drug
Administration](https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/compliance-actions-and-activities/warning-letters)
for making false claims about the health effects of these supplements.

Curcumin is a valuable case study in how unimpeded fraud can distort an
entire research field to the detriment of genuine research. Despite
indications that Aggarwal's research on curcumin ought not to be
considered reliable, a majority of articles and an even greater majority
of NIH-funded studies about curcumin still cite Aggarwal's work. It
seems unlikely that this explosion in funding and research would have
materialized if Aggarwal had not engaged in large-scale research fraud.

Scientific fraud, especially at this scale, is alarming. However, there
is a common refrain that instances like this are an exceedingly rare,
insular threat and that any harm done to human knowledge by them will
inevitably be neutralized by science's remarkable tendency for
self-correction. Once the history books are written, these instances
will be little more than footnotes, parked between [the Bates
method](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bates_method) and
[orgone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgone).

However, self-correction has a high cost in the present: hundreds of
millions of taxpayer dollars, countless hours spent toiling by junior
scientists, thousands of laboratory animals sacrificed, thousands of
cancer patients enrolled in clinical trials for ineffective treatments,
and countless people who have eschewed expensive and invasive but
effective cancer treatment in favor of a store-bought spice, encouraged
by research steeped in lies.

Bharat B. Aggarwal is an Indian-American biochemist who worked at MD Anderson Cancer Center from 1989 to 2015. His research focused on potential anti-cancer effects and therapeutic applications of herbs and spices. Aggarwal was particularly drawn to curcumin, a non-toxic compound found in turmeric that has long been staple in Ayurvedic systems of medicine. He authored more than 120 articles about the compound from 1994 to 2020.

The King of Curcumin: a case study in the consequences of large-scale research fraud

Björn Brembs

In the
[last](https://www.theguardian.com/science/audio/2015/jun/12/scientific-retractions-fraud-explored)
"Science Weekly" podcast from the Guardian, the topic was retractions. 
At about 20:29 into the episode, [Hannah
Devlin](https://www.theguardian.com/profile/hannah-devlin) asked,
whether the reason 'top' journals retract more articles may be because
of increased scrutiny there.

The underlying assumption is very reasonable, as many more eyes see each
paper in such journals and the motivation to shoot down such
high-profile papers might also be higher. However, the question has
actually been addressed in the scientific literature and the data don't
seem to support this assumption. For one, [this
figure](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3479492/figure/fig03/?report=objectonly){target="_blank"}
shows that there are a lot of retractions from lower ranking journals,
but the journals who retract a lot are few and far between. In fact,
there are many more retractions in low-ranking journals than in
high-ranking ones. Of the high-ranking journals, a much larger
proportion also retracts many papers. However, this analysis only shows
that there are many more retractions in lower journals than in higher
journals on an absolute level. Hence, these data are not conclusive, but
suggestive that scrutiny is not really all that much higher for the
'top' journals than anywhere else.

Another reason why scrutiny might be assumed to be higher in 'top'
journals is that readership is higher, leading to more potential for
error detection. However, the same reasoning can be applied to
citations, and not only retractions. Moreover, citing a 'top' paper is
not only easier than forcing a retraction, it also benefits your own
research by elevating the perceived importance of your field. Thus, if
readership had any such influence, one would expect journal rank to
correlate better with citations than with retractions. The opposite is
the case: The coefficient of determination for citations with journal
rank currently lies around 0.2, while that coefficient comes to lie at
just under 0.8 for retractions and journal rank (Fig. 3 and Fig. 1D,
respectively,
[here](https://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291/full)).
So while there may be a small effect of scrutiny/motivation, the
evidence seems to suggest that it is a relatively minor effect, if there
is one at all.

Conversely, there is quite solid evidence that the methodology in 'top'
journals is not any better than in other journals, when analyzing
non-retracted articles. In fact, there are studies showing that the
methodology is actually *worse* in 'top' journals, while we have not
found a single study suggesting the methodology gets better with journal
rank. Our
[article](https://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291/full)
reviews these studies. Importantly, these studies all concern
non-retracted papers, i.e., the other 99.95% of the literature.

In conclusion, the evidence suggests scrutiny is likely a negligible
factor in the correlation of journal rank and retractions, while
increased incidence of fraud and lower methodological standards can be
shown.

I know [Ivan
Oransky](https://retractionwatch.com/meet-the-retraction-watch-staff/about/),
who was a guest on the show, is aware of these data, so it may have been
a bit unfortunate that Phillip Campbell (editor-in-chief at Nature
Magazine) got to answer this question before Ivan had a chance to lay
these data out. In fact, Nature is also aware of these data and has
twice refused publishing them. The first time when we submitted our
manuscript, with the statement, that Nature had already published
articles that stated that [Nature publishes the worst
science](https://bjoern.brembs.net/2013/06/everybody-already-knows-journal-rank-is-bunk).
The second time was when Cori Lok interviewed Jon Tennant and he told
her about the data, but Cori [failed to include this
part](https://bjoern.brembs.net/2014/09/how-nature-magazine-consistently-prefers-anecdote-over-data)
of the interview. There is thus a record of Nature, very understandably,
avoiding to admit their failure to select for solid science. Phillip
Campbell's answer to the question in the podcast may have been at least
the third time.

While Phillip Campbell did admit they don't do enough fraud-detection
(it is too rare), the issue of reliability in science goes far beyond
fraud, so successfully derailing the question towards this direction
served his company quite well. Clearly, he's a clever guy and did not
come unprepared.

Finally, one may ask: why do the 'top' journals publish unreliable
science?

Probably the most important factor is that they attract "too good to be
true" results, but only apply "peer-review light": rejection rates drop
dramatically from 92% to a mere 60% once your manuscript makes it past
the editors, that's a 5-fold increase in your publication chances (Noah
Gray and Henry Gee, pers. comm.). Why is that so? First, the reviewers
know the editor wants to publish this paper. Second, they have an
automatic conflict of interest, as a Nature paper in their field
increases the visibility of their field, they may even be cited in the
paper -- or plan to cite it in their upcoming grant application.

On average, this entire model is just a recipe for disaster and more
policing won't fix it. By using it, we have been setting us up for the
exponential rise in retractions to be seen in [Fig. 1a of our
paper](https://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/45406/fnhum-07-00291-r2/image_m/fnhum-07-00291-g001.jpg).

So, in the probably not too unlikely case that the topic of unreliable
science should come up again, anyone can now cite the actual,
peer-reviewed data we have at hand, such that editors-in-chief may have
a harder time derailing the discussion and obfuscating the issues in the
future.

**tl;dr:** The data suggest a combination of three factors leading to
more retractions in 'top' journals: 1. Worse methodological quality; 2.
Higher incidence of fraud 3. Peer-review light. One would intuitively
expect increased readership/scrutiny to play some role, but there is
currently no evidence for it and some circumstantial evidence against
it.


In the last “Science Weekly” podcast from the Guardian, the topic was retractions.  At about 20:29 into the episode, Hannah Devlin asked, whether the reason ‘top’ journals retract more articles may be because of increased scrutiny there. The underlying assumption is very reasonable, as many more eyes see each paper in such journals and the motivation to shoot down such high-profile papers might also be higher.

Messaggi di Rogue Scholar

Engineering the world’s highest cited cat, Larry

How shameful should retraction be?

The King of Curcumin: a case study in the consequences of large-scale research fraud

Are more retractions due to more scrutiny?