Weekend reads: Retracted COVID-19 papers; a coronavirus study kept under wraps; Harvard and Jeffrey Epstein

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.

Sending thoughts to our readers and wishing them the best in this uncertain time.

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• the correction of an influential paper on COVID-19 because it cited a withdrawn preprint;
• the retraction of a paper on gender dysphoria following a petition signed by 900 critics
• 20 expressions of concern for papers by a doctor who ran afoul of the FDA;
• the return of the peer review bandits.

How many papers about COVID-19 have been retracted? We’ve been keeping track, as part of our database. Here’s our frequently updated list.

Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

• “You’re seeing papers published in the world’s leading medical journals that probably shouldn’t have even been accepted in the world’s worst medical journals.”
• “Northwell kept the famotidine study under wraps to secure a research stockpile before other hospitals, or even the federal government, started buying it.”
• “Harvard settled with the federal government for $1.3 million over allegations that a former professor…overcharged federal grants.”
• Harvard placed a professor “on paid administrative leave Friday after a review into Harvard’s ties to Jeffrey E. Epstein found extensive and previously unreported contact between the professor and the convicted sex offender.”
• A controversy over the potential COVID-19 drug remdesivir? Andrew Gelman takes a look, based on a tip from Stephen Wood about a study.
• A former Japanese university president who has had 11 articles retracted gives back an award.
• Kogakuin University in Japan has made a finding of misconduct — but they aren’t saying who committed it.
• “Why are journals so obsessed by theory? If contributing to knowledge is the name of the game, what is wrong with description, asks Michael Marinetto.” (Times Higher Education)
• “Spin in Scientific Publications” is “A Frequent Detrimental Research Practice,” writes Isabelle Boutron.
• “Three ways to turn the page after your first paper rejection.”
• “Pseudoscience and COVID-19 — we’ve had enough already.”
• “Indeed, some journals are instituting an interesting solution.” Publishing during a pandemic.
• “The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of Research Integrity (ORI) is seeking information and comments from entities and individuals regarding best practices for sequestering evidence during research misconduct proceedings.”
• “What form will medical publishing take in the latter years of the 21^st Century?”
• Which field’s authors cite themselves the most? A new study in Scientometrics of more than 400,000 researchers takes a look.
• “When Holden Thorp became editor in chief of Science in October 2019, he wasn’t planning to write editorials challenging the US president during an international crisis.”
• “Chinese state censorship of COVID-19 research represents a looming crisis for academic publishers.”
• “To change your understanding, or to change your behavior, based on a single study, is a mistake.” Our Ivan Oransky talks to PRI’s The World about COVID-19.
• “Do Peer Reviewers Prefer Significant Results?”
• “Nobel laureates see a dip in the influence of their work after winning prize,” when measured by citations.
• “The ethics of authorship and preparation of research publications,” from a journal editor.
• “‘Autistic voices should be heard.’ Autistic adults join research teams to shift focus of studies.”
• A constitutional court says Croatia’s parliamentary science ethics committee can’t rule on individual cases of research misconduct.

A reminder of Retraction Watch appearances in the media during the pandemic:

• “Quick retraction of a faulty coronavirus paper was a good moment for science.” (STAT)
• “The Science of This Pandemic Is Moving at Dangerous Speeds.” (WIRED)
• “Strong caveats are lacking as news stories trumpet preliminary COVID-19 research.” (Health News Review)
• “Science Communications In the Time of Coronavirus.” (On The Media)
• “What do hydroxychloroquine, ibuprofen and blood type have to do with coronavirus? Looking at the COVID-19 myths causing confusion.” (ABC Australia)
• Will “the race to uncover the mysteries of the [coronavirus]…lead to a torrent of ‘bad science‘”? Our Ivan Oransky speaks to Kenneth Cukier for The Economist’s Babbage podcast.
• “Unfortunately people in times of crisis forget that science is a proposition and a conversation and an argument.” Our Ivan Oransky talks to the New York Times about COVID-19 and speed limits.
• Should researchers be wary of studies of coronavirus being done in China? It’s a mixed picture, according to a story in Denmark’s Weekendavisen quoting our Ivan Oransky.
• The rush to publish during #COVID19: Our Ivan Oransky on CBC’s The National, along with Timothy Caulfield.

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, 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].