Weekend reads: STAP saga over once and for all?; plagiarizing prof gets tenure

The week at Retraction Watch featured the appeal of a modern-day retraction, and a look at whether a retraction by a Nobel Prize winner should be retracted 50 years later. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

• Is the case finally closed on the STAP stem cell scandal? Paul Knoepfler takes a look at two new Nature papers “thoroughly refuting STAP cells and providing some further insights.” Nature says it published the papers because “The wording of the STAP retraction notices left open the possibility that the phenomenon was genuine.” The papers “clearly establish that it is not.”
• A University of Arizona professor who plagiarized a student gets tenure.
• Why are men’s h indices higher than women’s? (sub req’d)
• A journal “discourages citation of work published in journals from any of the known predatory publishers or stand-alone predatory/deceptive journals.”
• “Comments stay in the room — they’re not recorded. These comments are not ‘Google-able’.” Richard Price, the founder and CEO of Academia.edu, has a different way for scientists to critique one another’s work.
• “Meet Retraction Watch, the Blog That Points Out the Human Stains on the Scientific Record.” We’re profiled in The Chronicle of Higher Education.
• Two universities in China have asked a journal to retract a paper that allegedly violated a collaboration agreement, David Cyranoski reports.
• “If current growth continues, [physics] can be expected to have the co-author number surpassing ten thousand in 2020s,” finds a study (sub req’d).
• The peer review process is “a bit more dodgy than one might think,” says a guest on BBC Radio 4’s Inside Health.
• Medicine, a mega-journal, is declining, says Jeffrey Beall.
• It’s’ “high time for a common plagiarism detection system,” says Ivan Jarić (sub req’d).
• More research fraud going to court? “[W]e propose extending the well-established tort of fraudulent misrepresentation to fraudulent research published in journals based in the United States,” writes Enrique Guerra-Pujol (sub req’d).
• “[E]ditorial bias promoting the publication of authors from select high performance countries is declining,” according to a study (sub req’d), “although there is increasing editorial preference for university-based authors.”
• “The antifungal literature has problems,” says Derek Lowe.
• A different kind of retraction, as Gannett rescinds a buyout offer.
• First, fake peer reviews. Now, fake nursing licenses. A scary story from Felice Freyer and Kay Lazar.
• Nine retracted studies that left a mark, courtesy of Mihai Andrei.
• Who will win this year’s Nobels? Thomson Scientific offers its annual predictions.
• “What it’s like to earn a living as a research subject in clinical trials?” Fascinating, from Cari Romm.
• “Do FDA’s Fast-Track Reviews Skimp on Important Data?” asks John Gever.
• John Ioannidis, the author of the famous “most research findings are false” paper, is an “uncompromising gentle maniac.” (sub req’d)
• The “deluge of scientific literature is leaving researchers unsure of which information to trust,” Bob Grant writes of a new paper.
• “We are anonymous. We are legion. We are (mostly) harmful.” Philip Moriarty is a big fan of PubPeer, but not of anonymity.
• A group of researchers says they can’t reproduce their own findings linking oxytocin to trust. Neuroskeptic has details.
• What should be done about “the rise in research misconduct?” An interview with the Centre for Human Genetics’ Vidyanand Nanjundiah, formerly at the Indian Institute of Science.
• Want to end fake peer reviews? We explain how.
• Dude, where’s my link? An erratum.
• Nursing journal editor Roger Watson explores the peer review process.
• “Scientific misconduct: falsification, fabrication, and misappropriation of credit.” A book chapter from David Vaux, a member of the board of directors of The Center For Scientific Integrity, our parent non-profit organization.
• The publish or perish culture of academia encourages scientists to cut corners, says Virginia Barbour.
• The U.S. FDA slams a medical device company for running an unapproved trial.
• The U.S. National Academies of Science are warning “that growing government regulations detracts from research,” Sara Reardon reports.
• Interdisciplinary research is on the rise, and some fields are more interdisciplinary than others, Richard van Noorden reports.
• A researcher has weak data, but needs to make a decision. Andrew Gelman offers advice.
• “The data contained in tax returns, health and welfare records could be a gold mine for scientists — but only if they can protect people’s identities,” writes Erika Check Hayden.
• The PLOS ONE article processing charge increases to $1,495 on October 1.
• “It’s ok to publish weak evidence if it is interesting in some way,” says Andrew Gelman.
• Unlike Google itself, Google Scholar does not offer personalization of search results. This and other news from a recent society publishers conference.
• A study found that “research collaboration contributed to the advancement of research publication and vice versa” (sub req’d).

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, like us on Facebook, follow us on LinkedIn, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].