The week at Retraction Watch featured a the story of how a nonexistent paper earned 400 ciations, a lawsuit filed against a journal for publishing criticism, and the retraction and replacement of a paper by a group of anti-vaccine advocates. Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
- Ethically dubious research backed by tech billionaire Peter Thiel could cost a university millions in funding. (Beth Mole, Ars Technica)
- A stolen bone and a mysterious package lead to major concerns about three papers on early human occupation of Europe. (Ewen Callaway, Nature)
- Fear that press coverage counts as prior publication is giving scientists cold feet.” (Cassandra Willyard, The Open Notebook)
- In Singapore, as competition rises, so does the risk of academic fraud. (Yuen Sin, The Straits Times)
- A New Zealand university is investigating the conduct of researchers who let the subject of a ‘noise sensitisation’ experiment drive a vehicle despite experiencing a ‘severe’ response after visiting a wind farm,” reports Peter Hannam. (Brisbane Times)
- “That preprints render priority a fuzzy matter is a good thing, revealing what an artificial construct it always was.” Philip Ball looks at how ChemRxiv has fared in its early days. (Chemistry World)
- “You’re a Researcher Without a Library: What Do You Do?” Jake Orlowitz explains. (Medium)
- “65 out of the 100 most cited papers are paywalled.” (Josh Nicholson and Alberto Pepe, Authorea)
- A teacher says researchers who study voting patterns plagiarized her dissertation. (Bill Shaner, Worcester Magazine.)
- “It’s time to incentivise the behaviours that are good for research and researchers,” says Rebecca Lawrence. (LSE Impact Blog)
- “Like all good academic publications, it is way over the deadline, with excessive footnotes, and petty comments from Reviewer 2.” The Academia Obscura book is out.
- How do “working scientists themselves understand, conceptualize, apply, and communicate norms and standards for good research practice?” A new survey tried to find out. (Perspectives on Science, preprint)
- “Moneyball”-style advanced analytics could evaluate researchers’ scientific and economic contributions, says Julia Lane. (Nature)
- “Resources, equity, and incentives” are three notable challenges in sharing clinical trial data, from a funder’s perspective. (NEJM)
- “The dismal science remains dismal:” Adam Rogers takes stock of the replication crisis in economics. (WIRED)
- Years after the Ebola crisis, “much medical knowledge about the disease remains inaccessible.” (Till Bruckner, Devex)
- Single-blind review gives a “significant advantage” to famous authors and authors from “high-prestige institutions.” (PNAS)
- Need a paper? Web broswer plug-ins may help you find an open-access copy. (Dalmeet Singh Chawla, Nature)
- Anonymous survey: 60 percent of Middle Eastern researchers admit to misconduct.” (Rachael Pells, Times Higher Education)
- Self-proclaimed “grumpy old researcher” Enrico Traversa reflects on his publishing experiences, then and now.” (Material Matters)
- A new alliance of society-published journals wants to take on their for-profit counterparts. (Angela Cochran, Scholarly Kitchen)
- A non-profit group has retracted a flyer that seemed to be promising donors a private meeting with the U.S. secretary of defense. (Carl Prine, San Diego Union-Tribune)
- “‘Predatory’ is a loaded term” and its use hinders serious discussion about publishing practices. (Kevin Smith, Insights)
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].