A science journalists’ site weighs in on the historic retraction of Lancet anti-hydroxychloroquine paper:
Only one of the four authors of the paper had access to the data, Dr. Sepan Desai, who is the founder of the company Surgisphere that allegedly collected the data. The Lancet article indicates that he provided the statistical analysis of the dataset, which was subsequently discussed in the paper by the other authors. Since they had known one another for several years and had no reason to doubt his veracity, they accepted the analysis sight unseen. And while that approach frequently works in one-to-one relationships, should that be the standard for co-authorship?
“Mandeep Mehra, a Harvard University doctor who was a co-author on that study, said: “It is now clear to me that in my hope to contribute this research during a time of great need, I did not do enough to ensure that the data source was appropriate for this use. For that, and for all the disruptions — both directly and indirectly — I am truly sorry.” 
While this explanation is not quite “the dog ate my homework,” it is not an apology.Chuck Dinerstein, “Eminence Over Evidence: The Lancet’s COVID-19 Retraction” at American Council on Science and Health
Hit the source for more.
For the record, Uncommon Descent has no official opinion on this mess except to say, yes, a fumigator is badly needed at The Lancet.
ee also: Why not to trust “science” just now: COVID-19 edition We’ve been hearing complaints about Lancet and other journals for years. Trust but verify. “Science” is a discipline, not an incantation.