Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Were the 2019 study's methods or data criticized or retracted?
Executive Summary
The available analyses show that the 2019 study in question attracted substantive methodological criticism and allegations of data irregularities, and at least some contemporaneous papers discussing retractions and data integrity frame these concerns in a broader pattern of biomedical and social‑science integrity problems [1] [2] [3]. Reporting on retractions indicates that misconduct and errors like data duplication, misreporting, and incorrect imputation have driven retractions and author consequences across fields, though the evidence provided does not show a single unequivocal, universally accepted retraction decision for that specific 2019 paper in these sources [4] [1] [2]. The materials also document institutional and individual responses ranging from requests for retraction to authors disputing retraction, underscoring contested interpretations of methodological faults and different remediation choices [2] [5].
1. Why critics flagged the 2019 work and what they claimed went wrong
Critics reported concrete irregularities in the 2019 study’s dataset and analytic choices, alleging duplicate records, underreported geographic sampling, added respondents, and undisclosed imputation of missing values, all of which would materially alter the reported findings if true [1]. The critique presents these problems as both technical and reporting failures: technical because they affect replicability and effect estimates, and reporting because the authors failed to disclose the imputation and mischaracterized sample characteristics. These specific allegations echo familiar triggers for formal corrective action in the literature on retractions and research misconduct, where data manipulation, coding errors, and improper handling of missing data have led journals to issue corrections or retract papers [2] [4]. The presence of multiple types of alleged errors raised questions not only about isolated bugs but about the overall reliability of the study’s conclusions [1].
2. Was the paper retracted or corrected? What the sources record
The assembled sources indicate instances of retraction activity in the field and at least one retraction precipitated by programming errors and reversed coding that materially affected results, but they do not present a single, uncontested journal retraction notice specifically naming the 2019 study as retracted in these documents [2] [1]. One analyzed item reports an author‑requested retraction after discovering errors, including reversed coding and incorrect imputation, and frames that retraction as an author‑initiated corrective step [2]. Another source documents calls for retraction and documents methodological critiques of an earlier work, suggesting that retraction demands were part of scholarly dispute rather than a uniform editorial outcome [1]. The broader literature on retractions cited in these analyses shows retraction as a spectrum of responses—from expressions of concern to full retraction—and that outcomes depend on journal processes, author cooperation, and the nature of errors [4] [3].
3. How commentators placed the 2019 controversy inside wider integrity problems
Observers place the 2019 critiques amid a larger set of data‑integrity scandals and retraction studies that collectively emphasize the stakes: misconduct, coding errors, and falsified data materially distort scientific records and can trigger severe career and institutional consequences [6] [7]. Coverage of other biomedical and social‑science scandals in the materials shows a pattern where data fabrication or mismanagement leads to probes, large settlements, or retractions, reinforcing the significance of the methodological faults alleged in the 2019 study [6] [8]. Analyses of retraction impacts also show authors can experience major career disruptions, and that misconduct is often central in retraction decisions, underscoring why critics pursue corrections aggressively when they perceive serious data flaws [9] [4].
4. Responses from authors and defenders: contested science and remedies
The sources show that co‑authors and defenders sometimes disputed retractions or argued for methodological debate rather than removal, asserting that despite limitations the work had value and that discussion would be a more measured remedy than retraction [5]. One documented retraction was explicitly accompanied by author apologies and a request for removal after recognizing errors, indicating divergent author responses—from accepting and correcting the record to contesting editorial decisions and defending the core contribution [2] [5]. This split reflects broader tensions in scholarship: journals and critics push for clear corrections where errors undermine claims, while authors may prefer errata and methodological debate when flaws are presented as fixable or interpretive rather than fraudulent [5] [2].
5. What remains unresolved and what to watch for next
The materials compiled provide robust evidence that the 2019 study faced significant methodological criticism and that similar errors have prompted retractions elsewhere, but they do not present an undisputed, universally recognized operatic record—such as a single, definitive journal retraction notice for that study—within these documents [1] [2] [4]. Key unresolved items include whether the journal conducted a formal investigation, whether independent reanalyses reconfirm or overturn the study’s findings, and whether any editorial correction or retraction was ultimately issued beyond the contested exchanges captured here. Future verification should look for formal journal statements, author corrections or retraction notices, and independent replication attempts to settle whether the study’s flaws warranted correction or removal from the literature [2] [1].