Search

In June 2019, the journal PLoS ONE retracted an original research article, published in 2016, which described the effects of homeopathic Arnica montana on interleukin-4 treated human macrophages. The results showed an increase in extracellular matrix gene expression, including the gene encoding fibronectin, which is one of the main proteins involved in connective tissue healing. Here, the authors of the article discuss the critical points raised by the journal in the retraction note, with a focus on the specific methodological aspects of research on high dilutions of natural compounds. The editorial arguments made to justify the retraction did not prove any methodological errors, nor scientific misconduct. As a general rule, when a study published by a group of researchers raises scientific doubts because the results appear at variation with the commonly accepted knowledge in a field, the study is repeated by other scholars and any contrasting results are published and/or discussed. Therefore, retraction of the Arnica m. study by PLoS ONE is a violation of the conventions of scientific publication and knowledge-sharing methods derived from honest experimental method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to several recent studies, an unexpectedly high number of landmark papers seem to be not reproducible by independent laboratories. Nontherapeutic antibodies used for research, diagnostic, food analytical, environmental, and other purposes play a significant role in this matter. Although some papers have been published offering suggestions to improve the situation, they do not seem to be comprehensive enough to cover the full complexity of this issue. In addition, no obvious improvements could be noticed in the field as yet. This article tries to consolidate the remarkable variety of conclusions and suggested activities into a more coherent conception. It is concluded that funding agencies and journal publishers need to take first and immediate measures to resolve these problems and lead the way to a more sustainable way of bioanalytical research, on which all can rely with confidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Journals and institutions have important complementary roles to play in cases of suspected research and publication misconduct. Journals should take responsibility for everything they publish and should alert institutions to cases of possible serious misconduct but should not attempt to investigate such cases. Institutions should take responsibility for their researchers and for investigating cases of possible misconduct and for ensuring journals are informed if they have published unreliable or misleading articles so that these can be retracted or corrected. Journals and institutions should have policies in place for handling such cases and these policies should respect their different roles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]