Skip to main content
Tessa NewsLink
Paste a health news link, or browse

Several possible studies

Story checked

Sweet Sixteen Retractions – For Better Science (opens in a new tab)

forbetterscience.com · 2026-10-14

Short answerEvidenceSource

Short answer

Several possible studies

No clear answer.

More than one paper fits the article's details, and none fits well enough to single out. Checking claims against the wrong study would be worse than not checking them at all.

Checked against the study summary. The full text wasn't available, so some details couldn't be settled either way.

Share this check

Follow the evidence trail
1
2

NewsLink checks it

Several studies could be the source of this story.

More than one paper fits the article's details, and none fits well enough to single out. Checking claims against the wrong study would be worse than not checking them at all.

Open claim evidence
3

Search result

Several studies could fit.

More than one paper fits the article's details, and none fits well enough to single out. Checking claims against the wrong study would be worse than not checking them at all.

Source paper

Source layer

The 28 papers the story cites

Source study separated from background citations.

The research anchor for the report.

Related research

Research nearby

The papers it could be

Nearby papers when the source is unclear.

and 40 more considered

Then inspect each claim

Evidence layer

Claim by claim

What the story asserts. With no source study, there is nothing to check these against.

Claim 1 of 5Not checkedJörg Rinklebe faces a growing avalanche of retractions, currently 16.View evidenceHide evidence

As stated16 retractions

Not checked

NewsLink could not identify one source study, so this claim was not compared against a paper.

Claim 2 of 5Not checkedThe article says Rinklebe runs a gigantic peer review ring with fellow papermillers, and that his university whitewashed the allegations after appointing a theologian to investigate.View evidenceHide evidence

As statedgigantic peer review ring

Not checked

NewsLink could not identify one source study, so this claim was not compared against a paper.

Claim 3 of 5Not checkedThe story says several of Rinklebe’s papers were retracted because of compromised editorial handling, undisclosed collaboration, authorship changes, and/or serious data and analysis flaws, especially in Science of the Total Environment and related journals.View evidenceHide evidence

As statedmultiple retractions across several journals

Not checked

NewsLink could not identify one source study, so this claim was not compared against a paper.

Claim 4 of 5Not checkedThe article presents one specific paper as Rinklebe’s first-ever retraction: a 2023 Plant Physiology and Biochemistry paper on melatonin and strigolactone mitigating chromium toxicity in tomato.View evidenceHide evidence

As statedfirst-ever retraction

Not checked

NewsLink could not identify one source study, so this claim was not compared against a paper.

Claim 5 of 5Not checkedThe article also says Rinklebe’s retractions include papers on biochar, groundwater fluoride risk, arsenic-contaminated paddy soils, and soil remediation, often tied to editor conflicts involving Daniel C.W. Tsang, Deyi Hou, or Filip Tack.View evidenceHide evidence

As statedsweet sixteen retractions

Not checked

NewsLink could not identify one source study, so this claim was not compared against a paper.

Finally, the search trail

Method layer

No single source study was found.

NewsLink still surfaces nearby research so you can inspect the field instead of a single paper.

Nearby research

No exact source, but these papers are close.

Crossref, PubMed, Europe PMC · 43 candidate papers

Candidate

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Boron in plants: uptake, deficiency and biological potential

Plant Growth Regulation · 2023 · Crossref

Source (opens in a new tab)

And 38 more candidates considered.