Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• Dean in Indonesia resigns following Retraction Watch report

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 400. There are more than 48,000 retractions in The Retraction Watch Database — which is now part of Crossref. The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker now contains more than 250 titles. And have you seen our leaderboard of authors with the most retractions lately — or our list of top 10 most highly cited retracted papers? What about The Retraction Watch Mass Resignations List — or our list of nearly 100 papers with evidence they were written by ChatGPT?

Here’s what was happening elsewhere (some of these items may be paywalled, metered access, or require free registration to read):

• A dean of engineering in Nevada is out following allegations about “bizarre publishing” and plagiarism in a grant report.
• “Making Sense of Retractions and Tackling Research Misconduct.”
• “One Scientist Neglected His Grant Reports. Now U.S. Agencies Are Withholding Grants for an Entire University.”
• “Shrouded in secrecy: how science is harmed by the bullying and harassment rumour mill.”
• PLOS ONE retracts a paper with clear but undisclosed evidence of ChatGPT use. Nearly 100 such papers here.
• “Dana-Farber retracts string of studies in systematic review of data integrity.”
• “Errors, omissions, potential bias: Why some ME experts are calling for a retraction of the NIH intramural study.”
• “Researchers need ‘open’ bibliographic databases, new declaration says.”
• “Congress pushes NIH to review reproducibility and ‘near-misses.’”
• “Researchers want a ‘nutrition label’ for academic-paper facts.”
• “US COVID-origins hearing puts scientific journals in the hot seat.”
• “2 top Chinese academics named and shamed by graft-busters for ‘saying hello.’
• “Arise robot overlords! A synergy of artificial intelligence in the evolution of scientific writing and publishing.”
• Perceptions of research integrity in three different European countries: Estonia, France, and Spain.
• “Navigating the Science System: Research Integrity and Academic Survival Strategies.”
• “Hyper-ambition and the Replication Crisis: Why Measures to Promote Research Integrity can Falter.”
• “Make peer review great (again?)“
• “Our ‘publish-or-perish’ culture is breaking the academy.”
• “The war on error: A new project seeks to root out fraud in academia.”
• “A Study on the Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of Research Integrity among Medical Professionals in Ningxia, China.”
• “How Should We Fund Scientific Error Detection?” asks sleuth James Heathers. “I have a place to start.”
• “‘A Mess’: Harvard Med School Professor Plagiarized in Expert Report, Judge Says.”
• “Revealed: the ten research papers that policy documents cite most.”
• “Navigating the Science System: Research Integrity and Academic Survival Strategies.”
• “Structure peer review to make it more robust.”
• “Journals and publishers facing issues from fraudulent sites.”
• A doctor who took on drug companies and publishers has died.
• “The Replication Database: Documenting the Replicability of Psychological Science.”
• “To figure out whether an accusation of plagiarism is serious, apply the counterfactual test.”
• “Mistakes and misconduct in science are not synonymous; there are remedies for both.”
• “There Are Mistakes, And There Are Mistakes.”
• “Whistleblower professor accused of ‘serious misconduct’ sues Sydney Uni.”
• “Should researchers use AI to write papers? Group aims for community-driven standards.”

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, subscribe to our free daily digest or paid weekly update, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, or add us to your RSS reader. If you find a retraction that’s not in The Retraction Watch Database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.

Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• Publisher flags papers found by university to involve misconduct more than a year ago
• The dean who came to visit – and added dozens of authors without their knowledge
• Exclusive: Wiley journal editor under investigation for duplicate publications

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 400. There are more than 48,000 retractions in The Retraction Watch Database — which is now part of Crossref. The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker now contains more than 250 titles. And have you seen our leaderboard of authors with the most retractions lately — or our list of top 10 most highly cited retracted papers? What about The Retraction Watch Mass Resignations List — or our list of nearly 100 papers with evidence they were written by ChatGPT?

Here’s what was happening elsewhere (some of these items may be paywalled, metered access, or require free registration to read):

• “Little change in Japan’s research sector 10 years after stem cell fraud.”
• “Embattled Harvard honesty professor accused of plagiarism.”
• “Fabrication in a study about honesty: A lost episode of columbo illustrating how forensic statistics is performed.”
• “A key chemistry journal disappeared from the web. Others are at risk.”
• “Things we can learn from the ongoing Heterocycles debacle.”
• “Scientific publishers *not* adding value.”
• “Introducing Synchronous Robustness Reports: Guidelines for Journals.”
• “Stanford’s Faculty Senate Condemned Scott Atlas’s Covid Views. Now They Might Take It Back.”
• “COI works both ways: Investigation of misconduct by an independent research integrity organization is the way to go.”
• “Is ChatGPT corrupting peer review? Telltale words hint at AI use.”
• “Three ways ChatGPT helps me in my academic writing.”
• “We propose an algorithm to identify the papers with the highest quality from a large number of submissions.”
• “You may have come across equally troubling papers in your field. Don’t remain silent.”
• “The Master’s thesis of Health Minister Ingvild Kjerkol has been rejected by the complaints board at Nord University, NRK has been informed.”
• “Journal editors probed on ‘relationship with government.’”
• “Social science impact demands faster publishing and more reproducibility.”
• “[I]nvestigation reveals how superconductivity physicist faked blockbuster results.”
• “‘Star’ neuroscientist faked data in paper and grant applications, U.S. government finds.”
• “Publishing negative results is good for science,” writes Elisabeth Bik.
• “‘Weaponization of Plagiarism’ or Rigorous Standards Behind Provost’s Ouster?”
• “Netflix fossil researcher accused of ‘exploiting preprint shortcut.'”
• “Generative AI firms should stop ripping off publishers and instead work with them to enrich scholarship.
• “Jakarta investigates academics in ‘people trafficking’ probe.”
• “The changing landscape of UK learned society publishing.”
• “Physiology journal mandates sex and gender equality checks.”
• “Ekiti university sanctions professor over alleged plagiarism.”
• “On the Dearth of Retractions in Social Work.”
• “All authors responsible for research misconduct in Sweden.”
• “Four years later, chloroquine boosters face limited accountability.”
• “International multi-stakeholder consensus statement on clinical trial integrity.”
• “Authorship conflicts in academia: an international cross-discipline survey.”
• “Is Italy struggling with maintaining high level of research integrity?”
• “Mega-authorship implications: How many scientists can fit into one cell?”

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, subscribe to our free daily digest or paid weekly update, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, or add us to your RSS reader. If you find a retraction that’s not in The Retraction Watch Database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.

Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• Chief researcher at national Japanese institute has paper retracted for faking data
• Exclusive: ‘Bust Size and Hitchhiking’ author to earn four more expressions of concern
• Paper claiming vaping tops nicotine gum for smoking cessation retracted from JAMA journal
• High-profile ob-gyn accused of duplicating data threatens to sue critic
• Embattled researcher Didier Raoult earns more than 100 expressions of concern and another retraction
• Cureus reviewing paper alleged to plagiarize Lancet article

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 400. There are more than 48,000 retractions in The Retraction Watch Database — which is now part of Crossref. The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker now contains more than 250 titles. And have you seen our leaderboard of authors with the most retractions lately — or our list of top 10 most highly cited retracted papers? What about The Retraction Watch Mass Resignations List — or our list of papers with evidence they were written by ChatGPT?

Here’s what was happening elsewhere (some of these items may be paywalled, metered access, or require free registration to read):

• “FDA describes ‘objectionable conditions’ at New York State Psychiatric Institute.”
• “The ethical and social effects of the obsession over Journal Impact Factor.”
• “Impact factors are outdated, but new research assessments still fail scientists.”
• “Nobel Prize winner acknowledges errors in three more papers.”
• Moses Bility, a former professor at the University of Pittsburgh who sued the institution for racial discrimination and retaliation has had most, but not all, of his complaints dismissed. Bility is now at Howard University.
• “Drug Company’s Libel Lawsuit Against Scientists Dismissed.” The magistrate judge has a PhD in zoology.
• “Retractions in arts and humanities: an analysis of the retraction notices.”
• “Notre Dame reports 75 lab mice died after dose doubled in drug research. Feds alerted.”
• “It’s Ariely time! They had a preregistration but they didn’t follow it.”
• “Uncertainty is Science’s Super Power. Make It Yours, Too.”
• “Empowering Student Authorship in Synthetic Biology.”
• “China’s universities just grabbed 6 of the top 10 spots in one worldwide science ranking – without changing a thing.”
• “AI reveals huge amounts of fraud in medical research.”
• “All articles published in the Future Healthcare Journal authored by Jeannie Watkins should have stated as a declaration of interest that she is a director of the recruitment organisation PAs Transforming Healthcare (PATH) with a 10% share holding.”
• Experts worry Francesca Gino’s lawsuit for defamation will silence critics.
• Researchers “found an issue with a specific type of brain imaging study.” Then the backlash started.
• Sleuth Nick Wise is a winner of the 2024 Dorothy Bishop Prize. More about his work here.
• How often are retracted papers in orthopedics still cited?
• “Navigating the Retraction Minefield in China and Beyond: A Need for Systemic Changes and Increased Focus on Researcher Well-Being.”
• “A structured, journal-led peer-review mentoring program enhances peer review training.”
• “Black Scholars Face Anonymous Accusations in Anti-DEI Crusade.”
• “Personal Misconduct Elicits Harsher Professional Consequences for Artists (vs. Scientists).”
• “Should research administrators be regulated as carefully as researchers?”
• “In a bold bid to avoid open-access fees, Gates foundation says grantees must post preprints.”
• “Anthropologists take up arms against ‘race science.’”
• “Scientific fraud is so shocking because we do not normally assume a researcher has made up or altered data.”
• “The impact of researchers’ perceived pressure on their publication strategies.”
• “It’s a terrifying conversation, where he lays bare the outright fraud in medical publishing.” Our Ivan Oransky appears on the PicPod podcast.
• “FoSci —  The Emerging Field of Forensic Scientometrics.”
• “Should publishers flag replication failures in the same way they flag retractions?”
• “Daily Caller Retracts Article That Launched Phony Easter Outrage Cycle.”

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, subscribe to our free daily digest or paid weekly update, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, or add us to your RSS reader. If you find a retraction that’s not in The Retraction Watch Database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.

Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• Following mass resignation, obstetrics journals place editor’s notes on studies

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 400. There are more than 47,000 retractions in The Retraction Watch Database — which is now part of Crossref. The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker now contains more than 250 titles. And have you seen our leaderboard of authors with the most retractions lately — or our list of top 10 most highly cited retracted papers? What about The Retraction Watch Mass Resignations List — or our new list of papers with evidence they were written by ChatGPT?

Here’s what was happening elsewhere (some of these items may be paywalled, metered access, or require free registration to read):

• “‘If Only She Could Have Been Stronger’: Miami Trial Fraud Leads to Prison, Personal Loss.”
• “Journal editors are resigning en masse: what do these group exits achieve?”
• A preprint estimates “at least 60,000 papers…were LLM-assisted.”
• “Legislator pushing anti-vax bill admits cited source was retracted from scientific journal.” Here’s that source.
• “The bottom line is that journals are not equipped with their volunteer editors and reviewers, and non-subject matter expert staff to police the world’s scientific enterprise.” A response from Anna Abalkina.
• “Publishers must own their past mistakes, accept that there will be mistakes in the future, and see retractions as best practice when it comes to dealing with published fraudulent articles.”
• “The Feds Want More Oversight of Scientific Research. Universities Are Fighting Back.”
• What should the annual budget of the U.S. Office of Research Integrity be?
• “Scientists oppose retractions for racism, sexism and fraud.”
• “It is time to stop the weaponization of the footnote.”
• “Fourth Black Female Harvard Scholar Accused of Plagiarism Amid Assault on DEI Initiatives.”
• “Academic publishing requires linguistically inclusive policies.”
• “When it is and isn’t OK to recycle text in scientific papers.”
• “[T]here is low-quality work everywhere you look, the peer-review system has long outlived its utility, and academic publishing is a dumpster fire.”
• “Have AI-Generated Texts from LLM Infiltrated the Realm of Scientific Writing?”
• “Tweeting your research paper boosts engagement but not citations.”
• “The Case for a Peer Review Market.”
• Where do mass retractions leave Frontiers’ image?
• “Nobel Prize winner’s paper to be corrected, according to co-author.”
• A decade-plus of a perplexing “withdrawal” policy at Elsevier, in a thread.
• “How rightwing groups used junk science to get an abortion case before the US supreme court.” Including now-retracted papers.
• Open retraction data: A conversation about Crossref’s acquisition of the Retraction Watch Database.
• “[A]ll the stupid things that researchers say in order to deflect legitimate criticism.”
• Fun with authorship.
• Retractions in pharmacology.
• “Sweden Says Windpipe Surgeon Can Serve Prison Term In Spain.”
• “UW-Madison’s leading DEI scholar accused of decades of research misconduct.”
• “The Top Italian Scientists and their Journal.” Featuring some familiar names from Retraction Watch.
• “In published papers, authorship attribution and disclosure of funding support have emerged, oddly and unexpectedly, as elements of government enforcement in the ‘foreign influence’ area.”
• “Analysis of Indian Retracted Publications: A Study Based on Scopus Data.”
• “Can ChatGPT predict article retraction based on Twitter mentions?”
• “Virologist who was fired from research laboratory in Canada over security threat resurfaces in China.”
• “Two studies fail to replicate ‘holy grail’ DIANA fMRI method for detecting neural activity.”

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, subscribe to our free daily digest or paid weekly update, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, or add us to your RSS reader. If you find a retraction that’s not in The Retraction Watch Database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.

Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• Do some IQ data need a ‘public health warning?’ A paper based on a controversial psychologist’s data is retracted
• Controversial pyramid paper retracted when authors turn out to have radiocarbon-dated nearby dirt
• Exclusive: PLOS ONE to correct 1,000 papers, add author proof step
• Paper cited by article at center of lawsuit for criticizing Splenda earns an expression of concern

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 400. There are more than 47,000 retractions in The Retraction Watch Database — which is now part of Crossref. The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker now contains more than 250 titles. And have you seen our leaderboard of authors with the most retractions lately — or our list of top 10 most highly cited retracted papers? What about The Retraction Watch Mass Resignations List — or our new list of papers with evidence they were written by ChatGPT?

Here’s what was happening elsewhere (some of these items may be paywalled, metered access, or require free registration to read):

• “More Studies by Columbia Cancer Researchers Are Retracted: The studies, pulled because of copied data, illustrate the sluggishness of scientific publishers to address serious errors, experts said.”
• “We are in the middle of an epidemic of scientific fraud that is seriously compromising research.”
• A study finds that “publications citing retracted articles were more often retracted.”
• “If it’s the first time you’ve seen a really weird paper get published, I can see why it would capture your attention.” But “it’s all sort of mind-numbingly routine at this point.”
• “When I see fields that don’t have as many retractions, I’m reasonably sure that’s because nobody is looking.” Two BBC appearances by our Ivan Oransky (starting at ~46:00) and here at ~40:00.
• “Response to: ‘Bad bibliometrics don’t add up for research or why research publishing policy needs sound science.'” The strain saga continues.
• “UCLA Punished a Prominent Scientist for ‘Destructive and Harmful Conduct.’ She Says It’s ‘Unjust Persecution.’”
• “Stanford Math-Education Expert Has ‘Reckless Disregard for Accuracy,’ Complaint Alleges.”
• “Guest opinion: Scientific fraud puts Utah children’s safety at risk.”
• “The Latest ‘Crisis’ — Is the Research Literature Overrun with ChatGPT- and LLM-generated Articles?”
• “Lack of experimentation has stalled the debate on open peer review.”
• “Is AI ready to mass-produce lay summaries of research articles?”
• “Ending profiteering from publicly-funded research: Tackling the academic publishing oligopoly.”
• “$160K Libel Verdict for Ex-Student Based on Professor’s Research Misconduct Allegations.”
• “Drug company and former director are convicted of submitting falsified data to MHRA.”
• “Superconductor Scientist Engaged in Research Misconduct, Probe Finds.”
• Our Ivan Oransky appears on the Unleashed podcast.
• “An Influential Economics Forum Has a Troubling Surplus of Trolls.” A story on criticisms on the site in 2016.
• “Academics boycott Wiley gender journal after ‘anti-woke’ shift.”
• “The aspiring rector who wrote four paragraphs and cited himself 100 times.” Our coverage from 2022.
• What is publication integrity, “why does it matter, how it is safeguarded and how could we do better?”
• “Monitoring AI-Modified Content at Scale: A Case Study on the Impact of ChatGPT on AI Conference Peer Reviews.”
• “Universities need to stop hiding from research integrity problems,” says the editor in chief of Science. We and others agree.
• “Participant Fraud in Virtual Qualitative Substance Use Research.”
• “Retracted research papers not a concern, says deputy minister.”
• “David versus Goliath: Early career researchers in an unethical publishing system.”
• “Washington Monthly publishes Israeli writer’s coexistence piece retracted by leftist literary journal Guernica.”

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, subscribe to our free daily digest or paid weekly update, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, or add us to your RSS reader. If you find a retraction that’s not in The Retraction Watch Database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.