A Geophysical Research Letters retraction notice dated 8 April 2026 says the theoretical dynamic spectra in Figures 3, 4 and 5 of a 2016 paper “were not constructed using outputs from the simulations, but instead were likely fabricated.” Those spectra were the paper’s predictions, plots of the radio emission a solar eruption should produce, presented as the output of computer models. The first author, Joachim Schmidt, was a research fellow in the University of Sydney’s physics department from 2010 to 2021. Three years before that notice, in February 2023, Sydney’s deputy vice-chancellor for research had written to outside scientists that an investigation found Schmidt “utilised Adobe Photoshop to make up results” in a different manuscript, one that was never published.

In September the Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics retracted two more of his papers on the same grounds. The first notice names Figures 9, 11, 13 and 14 of a January 2014 paper. The second names Figures 8 through 10 and 12 of an August 2014 analysis of the solar radio bursts of 7 March 2012. All three papers had been in the literature for between ten and twelve years. All three list Iver Cairns, Schmidt’s supervisor at Sydney, as second author, and Vasili Lobzin of Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology is third author on the August 2014 paper. Retraction Watch reported the September retractions on 26 October.

FROM THE DOCUMENT
were not constructed using outputs from the simulations, but instead were likely fabricated
The journal's finding on the three prediction figures in the 2016 letter. Source: retraction notice
FROM PUBLICATION TO RETRACTION
  1. 2014two papers published in JGR Space Physics
  2. 2016prediction letter published in GRL
  3. 2023Sydney finds fabrication in an unpublished manuscript
  4. 2024anonymous concern reaches the publisher
  5. 2026all three published papers retracted
The published papers came down more than three years after the first finding.

A figure the model could not have made

The 2023 case began with a scientist outside Australia. Cairns emailed a draft manuscript to Gábor Tóth at the University of Michigan, whose group built the simulation model Schmidt had used, and asked whether he wanted to join as a co-author. Tóth looked at a figure supposedly produced by his group’s model and recognized that it could not have been. He later told Retraction Watch the cheating was “so obvious that it can be understood by anyone.” According to the redacted report, neither Schmidt nor digital forensics experts could reproduce the image with the model.

The investigators, Richard de Grijs of Macquarie University and Rob Wittenmyer of the University of Southern Queensland, dated their report January 2023. It found that Schmidt’s creation or alteration of the figure “amounted to fabrication and falsification,” that he alone was responsible, and that Cairns had no involvement and did not know. Tóth called the decision to clear Cairns “completely irresponsible.” Schmidt was never dismissed, and a university spokesperson said he left when his fixed-term contract expired. The deputy vice-chancellor’s letter, dated 15 February 2023, said Sydney had launched a probe of all images in papers Schmidt co-authored over the previous five years.

Five years back from 2023 reaches 2018, so on the letter’s own terms the 2014 and 2016 papers sat outside that window. The available record does not show whether the review went further back, or what it found. It does show that all three papers stayed in their journals, unretracted, for more than three years after the letter was sent.

The tip came from outside

The second inquiry started with a complaint to the publisher. According to the notices, an anonymous concern about the authenticity of the data arrived in 2024, and the journal and publisher opened an integrity investigation in January 2025. Retraction Watch reports that the journal told Cairns, Schmidt and Lobzin about the concern in 2024. It also reports that the Australian magazine The Monthly wrote in March 2025 that it had alerted the American Geophysical Union, which publishes both journals, to two of the papers in June 2024. An AGU spokesperson declined to say whether the magazine was the source.

Cairns took the concerns to the university in early 2025, after the journal had contacted the authors. A Sydney spokesperson told Retraction Watch that Cairns had raised concerns with the Research Integrity team about several publications and that the university opened a new investigation, adding that neither investigation found wrongdoing by Cairns. The notice on the August 2014 paper describes that university review as still under way. Cairns declined to comment, citing the investigation.

The notices rest on the files Schmidt left behind, which Sydney reviewed. The August 2014 notice says those files show simulations “were performed and analyzed,” and that there “appears to be clear evidence that certain figures are incorrect.” The files included IDL programs that produced theoretical dynamic spectra for “type II burst events not addressed in the paper,” which the notice calls the “offending IDL programs.” No program turned up for the retracted figures themselves, but the notice says “the qualitative appearance of these radio dynamic spectra is very similar to those for the offending IDL programs.”

The 2016 notice says Figures 1 and 2, built from STEREO spacecraft data and models, have no known issues. The retractions fall on the predictions, which each paper was written to deliver. All three notices give the same reason: “the accuracy and veracity of some materials contained in the article can no longer be relied upon.” Cairns requested the retraction of the two papers he wrote with Schmidt alone, and he and Lobzin agreed to the third. Each notice records that Schmidt did not respond.

The Crossref record for the 2016 letter lists the Australian Research Council as a funder, with no award number. The deposited records for the August 2014 paper and the January 2014 paper carry no funder field, which shows what was deposited, not what the papers disclosed. As of 26 October 2026, Crossref counted 21 citing works for the January 2014 paper, 25 for the August 2014 paper and 23 for the 2016 letter. That makes 69 citations of papers the journals now say carried likely fabricated figures. Retraction Watch, using Clarivate’s Web of Science, puts each of the September retractions at 22.

CITING WORKS PER RETRACTED PAPER (citations)
Figure data
GroupValue (citations)
January 2014 paper21
August 2014 paper25
2016 letter23
Crossref counts of works citing each paper, as of 26 October 2026.

A senior name on a byline helps a paper get believed, and co-authored papers count on CVs, grant applications and promotion files. By the university spokesperson’s account, two investigations found no wrongdoing by Cairns, and nothing in the notices suggests that he or Lobzin knew about the fabrication. The notices tie the files to the first author and record the co-authors’ agreement to retract. Tóth objected in 2023 to clearing the senior co-author at all, which leaves a question the panel answered in Cairns’s favor and the notices never address: what a supervisor whose name appears second on the byline is expected to check before a paper goes out.

Both inquiries were run by the university that employed the scientist, and the published papers moved only after someone outside it complained to the publisher. The Michigan scientists first complained in late 2019, and the last of the three retractions came in September 2026.

The University of Sydney holds copies of Schmidt’s files and is running an investigation whose findings it has not published. In 2023 it committed to examining the images in five years of his papers. Neither its new statement nor the three notices say whether that review ever reached the 2014 and 2016 papers, or how far back the new investigation will go. Schmidt answered neither the journals nor Retraction Watch. How far back Schmidt’s papers will be examined is a question for Sydney’s Research Integrity team, which has not made an answer public.

Sources

  1. Geophysical Research Letters: Retraction of Schmidt and Cairns, “Quantitative prediction of type II solar radio emission from the Sun to 1 AU” (8 April 2026)
  2. JGR: Space Physics: Retraction of Schmidt and Cairns, “Type II solar radio bursts predicted by 3-D MHD CME and kinetic radio emission simulations” (13 September 2026)
  3. JGR: Space Physics: Retraction of Schmidt, Cairns and Lobzin, “The solar type II radio bursts of 7 March 2012: Detailed simulation analyses” (13 September 2026)
  4. Retraction Watch: Another Sydney investigation of astrophysicist leads to retraction (26 October 2026)
  5. Retraction Watch: Exclusive: Australia space scientist made up data, probe finds (26 March 2023)
  6. Geophysical Research Letters: Schmidt and Cairns (2016), retracted article
  7. JGR: Space Physics: Schmidt, Cairns and Lobzin (August 2014), retracted article
  8. JGR: Space Physics: Schmidt and Cairns (January 2014), retracted article
  9. Crossref record for the 2016 letter
  10. Crossref record for the August 2014 paper
  11. Crossref record for the January 2014 paper