{"id":689620,"date":"2026-07-13T17:07:08","date_gmt":"2026-07-13T17:07:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/689620\/"},"modified":"2026-07-13T17:07:08","modified_gmt":"2026-07-13T17:07:08","slug":"disappointed-cochrane-journal-asked-researchers-to-publish-article-then-retracted-it-for-conflicts-retraction-watch","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/689620\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018Disappointed\u2019: Cochrane journal asked researchers to publish article, then retracted it for conflicts \u2013 Retraction Watch"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

A developer of an AI tool for conducting literature reviews said he and his team were \u201cexcited and honored\u201d when a Cochrane journal had extended a \u201cspecific and individual invitation\u201d in January 2025 to submit an article describing their system.<\/p>\n

Kevin Kallmes<\/a>, the chief executive officer at and founder of Nested Knowledge<\/a>, and five of his colleagues wrote the manuscript and submitted their paper describing the procedure for using AutoLit. They included their affiliations and a note they held equity in the company. Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods published the paper<\/a> in October.<\/p>\n

A few months later, the journal retracted it.\u00a0<\/p>\n

According to the June 1 retraction notice<\/a>, the authors\u2019 affiliations with the maker of the product described \u201cconstitute a breach of Cochrane\u2019s COI policy.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cDue to an editorial oversight, this policy breach was not identified during the editorial process, leading to the article\u2019s acceptance and publication,\u201d according to the notice, which adds all authors agreed to the retraction.<\/p>\n

Kallmes told Retraction Watch the editorial staff \u201cacted in good faith in the invitation, review and acceptance of our article.\u201d However, he said he and his team were disappointed with the decision to retract, and worried some readers would assume the move reflected an author issue rather than a mistake by the journal.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The special issue containing the article covered AI in evidence synthesis and focused on validations, methods and tutorials in AI systems. The article has been cited twice, according to Clarivate\u2019s Web of Science.<\/p>\n

Cochrane discovered the issue when it realized the article lacked a conflict of interest statement, a spokesperson said. After asking the authors to provide one, they realized the paper failed to meet the journal\u2019s specific conflict of interest policies. A representative from Cochrane said it shares editorial responsibility over the journal with Wiley, but Cochrane is the \u201csteward of editorial standards.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

Kallmes told us the article was \u201cclearly authored by the platform\u2019s inventors based on the text and affiliations,\u201d and said he asked the journal to issue a correction adding a COI statement.<\/p>\n

Conflicts of interest are a \u201crelatively uncommon\u201d reason for journals to retract or correct papers, especially when COI is the only issue, according to a study published this month<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Last year<\/a>, when employees of a tobacco company included their affiliation in the author list, but not in a separate declaration of interests, Toxicology Reports asked them to publish corrections reiterating their relationship with the company.<\/p>\n

In March, the research integrity team at Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods told the authors \u201cCochrane\u2019s approach [to COI] is intentionally stricter than many traditional journals,\u201d Kallmes said. His group plans to submit the article to a journal \u201cnot subject to Cochrane Library-specific COI policies,\u201d he said.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThe goal of our article is to publish practices for using our software platform for systematic review,\u201d Kallmes said. \u201cWhat option should be available for publishing methods articles, given that inventors often own the methods they disclose?\u201d<\/p>\n

Nathan Schachtman<\/a>, a product litigation attorney with an interest in COIs in studies<\/a>, called the retraction a \u201chuge embarrassment\u201d for Cochrane. \u201cNot only was there no failure to disclose commercial interests, the Cochrane folks solicited the article. And of course, Cochrane editors not only invited the article, the fully informed editors went forward with publication,\u201d he told us.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Kallmes and his colleagues wrote in a statement<\/a>: \u201cWe hope that our experience helps the research and publishing community identify a clear and proper approach and venue for platform developers such as ourselves to transparently publish methods for scientific research tools.\u201d<\/p>\n

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a\u00a0tax-deductible contribution to support our work<\/a>, follow us\u00a0on X<\/a> or Bluesky<\/a>, like us\u00a0on Facebook<\/a>, follow us on LinkedIn<\/a>, add us to your\u00a0RSS reader<\/a>, or subscribe to our\u00a0daily digest<\/a>. If you find a retraction that\u2019s\u00a0not in our database<\/a>, you can\u00a0let us know here<\/a>. For comments or feedback, email us at\u00a0[email\u00a0protected]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n\tRelated\n<\/p>\n

\t