Finding and reporting an irregularity in a published study can lead people down an unexpected path.

A Cochrane review bolsters scientists’ advice that ivermectin should not be used against the disease outside of clinical trials, while a study claiming to have found beneficial effects in patients was withdrawn following allegations of data manipulation.

The Retraction Watch team takes a look at the most important publishing mistakes this year.

The study, published in a peer-reviewed journal, has attracted widespread derision from researchers.

Illinois-based Surgisphere Corporation had a brief moment in the limelight this year following its infamous study of hydroxychloroquine. But the impact of the company’s deception reverberated across world.

The high-profile retractions of two COVID-19 studies stunned the scientific community earlier this year and prompted calls for reviews of how science is conducted, published, and acted upon. The warning signs had been there all along.

The changes, which affect the declarations authors have to sign and the peer-review process, have received a mixed response from the scientific community.

Fast science—with all its warts—is making unprecedented progress in the fight against COVID-19.

All authors other than company founder and CEO Sapan Desai were “unable to complete an independent audit of the data,” The Lancet states.

Early career researchers face unique challenges when a senior collaborator becomes embroiled in allegations of scientific malpractice.

After the initial announcements of two retractions, scientists have mobilized to interrogate the data in nearly 150 of Jonathan Pruitt’s papers.

Papers from Catherine Verfaillie’s lab have been drawing fire for years.

Criticism of the paper first surfaced in 1994, and its author was accused of scientific misconduct.

The authors have requested a retraction of a paper that found people with the CCR5 Δ32 variant are more likely to die sooner.

A study estimates that 0.15 percent of genetics articles are retracted, most commonly for duplication and plagiarism.

A panel finds David Latchman’s “recklessness in the conduct” of the lab and his involvement as an author on problematic papers facilitated the misconduct.

The University of Cambridge and the University of Bristol conducted investigations of the research.

The publication of the SCIPIO trial is among many by Piero Anversa’s lab that Harvard Medical School flagged for fraudulent data.

The manuscript had amassed more than 50 comments about problematic figures and data on PubPeer.