In a concerning development within academic publishing, Elsevier has retracted two research papers for image duplication – 13 years after the authors alerted the journal to issues with the work. These papers are the third and fourth retractions for a group of researchers in Ireland, who had asked Elsevier journals to retract five papers in April 2012, one of which is still in process.

The first two papers, published in Cancer Letters, were retracted in 2013. Last week, two more articles, published in the European Journal of Pharmacology (EJP), were retracted. The delay, according to the publisher, stems from its recent discovery of the unfulfilled request. An Elsevier spokesperson told Retraction Watch that EJP staff received information about a case concerning some EJP articles in the system during updates to the retraction platform and tool. The authors were contacted for clarification, and the publisher submitted retraction requests for the two articles.

The authors had “concerns that they could no longer guarantee the accuracy of certain figures within the paper,” according to both EJP retraction notices, which cite image duplications among the five papers. The remaining article, which appeared in Chemico-Biological Interactions, “has yet to be retracted,” according to the Elsevier spokesperson. “We are in touch with the current EIC [Editor in Chief] on this paper.” All five papers discuss aspects of apoptosis in human cancer cells.

Data shows the Cancer Letters papers retracted in 2013 have a single citation each. One of the newly retracted papers in EJP has 65 citations, 50 of which occurred in 2013 or later, after the authors reported the image duplications. The other EJP paper has 39 citations, 23 of which were from 2013 or later. The not-yet-retracted Chemico-Biological Interactions paper has 18 citations, 12 of which occurred in 2013 or later. The Elsevier spokesperson stated, “We strive to correct our records promptly whenever necessary.” Both retraction notices read, “the Publisher wishes to apologise to the authors for the delayed retraction.”

Regional Perspective

This case highlights the challenges faced by researchers in Ireland, who had to wait over a decade for methodical errors in their published research to be corrected. This prolonged delay not only impacts the researchers' reputations but also casts a shadow of doubt on the integrity and accuracy of works that have cited these papers, especially those that continued to cite them years after the issues were reported.

Analysis

This incident serves as a worrying indicator of the systemic challenges in academic publishing, particularly concerning the handling and correction of scientific misconduct reports. A 13-year gap for retraction decisions raises serious questions about the review and oversight mechanisms within major publishing houses like Elsevier. Such delays can undermine the credibility of published research, underscoring the need for more rigorous and transparent procedures to ensure the integrity of scientific knowledge. For academic institutions and researchers, this acts as a reminder to remain vigilant, closely monitor publishing processes, and push for more efficient and effective corrective actions for scientific integrity concerns with publishers.