Scholarlink

<p>Scientific misconduct threatens patient safety, progress, and trust in medicine. On October 3, 2020, Frass and colleagues published a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial in <i>The Oncologist</i> (published by Wiley at the time) claiming that add-on homeopathy significantly prolonged survival in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Since homeopathy contradicts established scientific principles, doubts about the trial’s validity quickly emerged. </p><p>Concerns were first published in October 2020, followed in 2021 by a detailed analysis alleging scientific misconduct. This prompted the Medical University of Vienna, the affiliation of the study's lead author, to request an investigation by the Austrian Agency for Research Integrity (OeAWI). After conducting an in-depth review, OeAWI concluded in September 2022 with a clear recommendation for retraction. However, <i>The Oncologist</i> issued only an ‘Expression of Concern’ at the time, despite five co-authors formally requesting the withdrawal of their authorship— a demand that remained unaddressed as of November 2025. Repeated inquiries to the journal and its publisher, Oxford University Press (OUP), yielded only vague assurances that the matter was “under review,” with multiple deadlines passing without resolution. Finally, by November 24, 2025, <i>The Oncologist</i> retracted the paper. However, the retraction notice fails to address the specific concerns raised about the study’s results and conclusions, nor does it provide a clear rationale for the retraction itself.</p><p>Meanwhile, the paper has been cited more than 60 times (according to Google Scholar) and is widely circulated online as “proof” that homeopathy benefits cancer patients. This highlights the harmful consequences of delayed editorial action. According to COPE guidelines, misconduct must be dealt with swiftly and transparently. Our case reveals the opposite: incomplete corrections, prolonged inaction, and even the defense of implausible claims. Against the backdrop of increasing organized scientific fraud, this experience underscores the urgent responsibility of journals and publishers to protect the scientific record and prevent harm to patients.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Trials and tribulations of responsible people trying to uphold scientific standards

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月16日

查看全文
  • Harald H. Sitte,
  • Jutta Hübner,
  • Norbert Aust,
  • Viktor Weisshäupl,
  • Edzard Ernst

摘要

Scientific misconduct threatens patient safety, progress, and trust in medicine. On October 3, 2020, Frass and colleagues published a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial in The Oncologist (published by Wiley at the time) claiming that add-on homeopathy significantly prolonged survival in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Since homeopathy contradicts established scientific principles, doubts about the trial’s validity quickly emerged.

Concerns were first published in October 2020, followed in 2021 by a detailed analysis alleging scientific misconduct. This prompted the Medical University of Vienna, the affiliation of the study's lead author, to request an investigation by the Austrian Agency for Research Integrity (OeAWI). After conducting an in-depth review, OeAWI concluded in September 2022 with a clear recommendation for retraction. However, The Oncologist issued only an ‘Expression of Concern’ at the time, despite five co-authors formally requesting the withdrawal of their authorship— a demand that remained unaddressed as of November 2025. Repeated inquiries to the journal and its publisher, Oxford University Press (OUP), yielded only vague assurances that the matter was “under review,” with multiple deadlines passing without resolution. Finally, by November 24, 2025, The Oncologist retracted the paper. However, the retraction notice fails to address the specific concerns raised about the study’s results and conclusions, nor does it provide a clear rationale for the retraction itself.

Meanwhile, the paper has been cited more than 60 times (according to Google Scholar) and is widely circulated online as “proof” that homeopathy benefits cancer patients. This highlights the harmful consequences of delayed editorial action. According to COPE guidelines, misconduct must be dealt with swiftly and transparently. Our case reveals the opposite: incomplete corrections, prolonged inaction, and even the defense of implausible claims. Against the backdrop of increasing organized scientific fraud, this experience underscores the urgent responsibility of journals and publishers to protect the scientific record and prevent harm to patients.