Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, we could really use your help. Would you consider a tax-deductible donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance.
The week at Retraction Watch featured a paper that used a mouse that doesn’t exist; the departure of a Columbia professor after plagiarism findings; and the correction of a paper whose authors claimed that cell phone use was causing people to grow “horns.” Here’s what happening elsewhere:
- Axel Ullrich just won one of science’s biggest prizes — nine years after two retractions. More from Le Monde.
- Is “citation doping” more common in Italy? Two takes on a new study, in the news sections of Science and Nature.
- “We Need to Talk About Authorship Abuse.”
- Concerns about research that makes use of executed prisoners’ organs leads to a tongue-in-cheek scale with a serious message: The ENJOY score.
- A researcher at Stony Brook University “has been accused of stealing $200,000 in cancer research funds and using the money for personal expenses.”
- “Often, publishing in Nature and similar journals is considered synonymous with success in science. This is a very narrow definition of success…” says Magdalena Skipper, editor of Nature.
- Duke University after a $112.5 million settlement for research misconduct allegations, part 1: “These incidents that occurred [were] highly unfortunate, we feel very bad about them and we’re trying to correct them.”
- Duke University after a $112.5 million settlement for research misconduct allegations, part 2: “In order to avoid any more research misconduct, Duke has taken several steps, like forming a new Office of Research. Another step? Having values.”
- “Relationships between owners of journals and editors can be tricky at times.” The CMAJ names a new editor in chief.
- How often do researchers have concerns about what they read?
- “[C]onfidential documents reviewed by Reuters accuse Merck of exaggerating the drug’s safety record.”
- “There are a significant number of papers that are of poor quality, and should never have made it through to publication.”
- “Sharpiegate” has led former U.S. federal scientists to request “a comprehensive investigation into multiple violations of the NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy.”
- “How do different stakeholders – authors, editors, readers, publishers, the public – value peer review quality?”
- “The Institute for Basic Science — South Korea’s flagship basic-research organization — is being restructured after a year of scandals and criticism, including allegations of misappropriated funds and nepotism.”
- “As an editor, I don’t care how long you take to review, as long as it is thorough and reasonable.”
- “‘Do not publish this book!’…Most peer reviews are more constructive, but this one stands out in my mind for its, well, minimalism.”
- “[T]he social sciences and humanities would benefit from a wider interpretation of scholarly attribution than is currently practiced.”
- “Retraction of publications is present in both high- and low-impact factor biomedical journals, but misconduct is more frequent among the papers retracted from lower impact journals.”
- India’s “UGC says publishing paper in de-recognised journals will affect promotion & appointment.”
- “Cambridge University Press is launching a new open-access journal to help address science’s reproducibility issues and glacial peer-review timelines.”
- “In what is perceived by academics as a gag order, Kerala Agricultural University (KAU) has sought explanation from K.M. Sreekumar, Professor of Agricultural Entomology at its College of Agriculture in Padannakkad, for writing an article in a Malayalam daily dubbing as unscientific many of the perceptions about the effects of endosulfan in Kasaragod.”
- “This is all feeling a bit silly. Metrics feel a bit silly.” The Mole weighs in on impact factor and more, in The Journal of Cell Science.
- “* The last two authors were equally uninvolved.” One researcher is curious.
- The UK’s Imperial College says that allegations about one of their professors made in Parliament and in the media are “unfounded.”
- “Another official Australian report has been doctored to gloss over rising inequality,” says Peter Saunders.
- “Can smiling really make you happier?”
- In Africa, say organizers of a workshop, “There is a need for continued discussions, integrated training programmes and implementation of institutional policies and guidelines to promote good practices.”
- A journal “erred in publishing the new paper on stem cells for autism,” writes researcher Paul Knoepfler.
- “[M]egajournals should consider implementing additional levels of oversight in an effort to reduce temptations associated with perverse incentives.”
- “There is a plethora of published checklists that may overwhelm authors looking to efficiently guard against publishing in predatory journals.”
- “IIT-Kanpur will not revoke the PhD dissertation of a Dalit teacher, who had complained of harassment and discrimination by four colleagues last year, on charges of plagiarism.” Earlier.
- “The Guardian has apologised for saying David Cameron had only felt ‘privileged pain’ over the death of his son.” The newspaper removed the remarks.”
- A publisher of children’s books is investigating a case of alleged art plagiarism in one of its books titled ‘The Little Hero.’”
- “For the Ninth [Peer Review] Congress, we call for new studies into the processes used by researchers, authors, editors, peer reviewers, publishers, funders, universities, and any other stakeholders to improve the conduct, reporting, quality, integrity, and dissemination of scientific research and academic commentary.”
- Congo has arrested its former health minister, accusing him of misusing Ebola funds.
- This is quite a correction in the Journal of Cell Science.
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].