Journal: Research integrity and peer review
The article describes a case study of how a flawed cancer trial and slow editorial response can endanger patients and distort the evidence base.
It examines a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study claiming survival benefit from add-on homeopathy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, published in The Oncologist in 2020.
Because homeopathy contradicts established scientific principles, the trial immediately attracted scrutiny. Detailed critique in 2021 alleged scientific misconduct, prompting an investigation by the Austrian Agency for Research Integrity at the request of the lead author’s institution.
In 2022, the agency recommended retraction, and several co-authors formally asked to have their names removed.
Nonetheless, the journal initially issued only an Expression of Concern and did not address the co-authors’ requests. Over the next years, repeated inquiries to the journal and its publisher were met with vague assurances and missed timelines.
The paper was finally retracted in late 2025, but the notice did not clearly state the specific problems with the data, results, or conclusions, nor why the retraction was being made.
During this prolonged process, the article was cited more than 60 times and was widely promoted online as evidence that homeopathy improves cancer outcomes.
- The authors argue that this case exemplifies the dangers of delayed, incomplete, and opaque editorial handling of suspected misconduct—especially when claims contradict basic science yet are used to influence vulnerable patients.
- They highlight the gap between best-practice guidance (e.g., COPE’s emphasis on swift, transparent action) and what occurred.
- They call on journals and publishers to respond more rapidly and clearly to protect the scientific record and patient safety.