In a revealing case spanning over two years, the starkly different retraction timelines of two major publishers have raised questions about their responsiveness to potential research misconduct.
The saga began on March 1, 2022, when Eric Ross, then a psychiatry trainee in Boston, alerted Wiley’s CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics and Springer Nature’s Neurotherapeutics to suspiciously similar papers he believed to be "fabricated." The papers, reporting on separate clinical trials of new antidepressant add-on medications, raised several red flags for Ross, including unrealistic data and potential patient harm.
While Neurotherapeutics retracted one of the studies after six months, citing serious issues with ethical oversight and data reliability, the paper in CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics remained untouched nearly a year after Ross's initial email.
The delayed retraction from CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics finally came two years later, on March 11. The notice cited concerns raised by a third party about the integrity of the clinical trial, leading to an investigation revealing significant data reliability issues.
Despite Ross's prompt alert and subsequent wait, the paper garnered 11 citations during this period, raising further concerns about its influence. Attempts to clarify the delay with Wiley and corresponding author Mahmoud S. Abdallah went unanswered.
The prolonged timeline and lack of transparency surrounding the delay in retracting the paper from CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics underscore the need for consistent and timely actions by publishers to address potential research misconduct, safeguarding the integrity of scientific literature and preventing harm to patients and the research community.
