For the paper, published in November, 2024 the authors measured concentrations of cortisol in hair samples from nearly 500 healthcare workers in Buenos Aires to study the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on chronic stress and burnout. The analysis hinged on a statistical method called mediation analysis. On the day the paper was published, Ian Walker, an environmental psychologist at Swansea University in Wales, saw the article and noticed something amiss. He posted on Bluesky, "How did editor and reviewers not spot that the (wrongly labelled) mediation statistic sits outside its own confidence interval?". That was in fact a typographical error, conceded lead author Federico Fortuna, of the Institute of Physiopathology and Clinical Biochemistry at the University of Buenos Aires.

The editors at Scientific Reports saw Walker’s Bluesky post and sought clarification from the authors. But then a few weeks later, the journal followed up, stating, "We sought advice from our Editorial Board on your article and I’m afraid some further concerns have now been identified." What followed was a lengthy back-and-forth, and, ultimately, the paper’s retraction on May 19, 2025. The notice reads: "Post-publication peer-review has confirmed that the basis of the mediation analysis itself is unsound."

Source https://retractionwatch.com/2025/07/11/retraction-for-unsound-analysis-was-disproportionate-and-discouraging-author-says/

Another high-profile case has interested scientists. Read now