Weekend reads: The researcher who publishes a paper every two days; “are publishers learning from their mistakes?”; overcoming COVID-19 misinformation

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:

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 37.

Here’s what was happening elsewhere:

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 team@retractionwatch.com.

4 thoughts on “Weekend reads: The researcher who publishes a paper every two days; “are publishers learning from their mistakes?”; overcoming COVID-19 misinformation”

  1. The open science advocates clearly lack ambition if they have time to spend on an initiative for open abstracts. What’s next? An initiative for open titles? An initiative for free previews of contents pages?

  2. does one in 4 days far behind this and warrant anything? 2020 – 79 (so far), 2019 – 95, 2018 – 99, 2017 – 105, 2016 – 94, 2015 – 99, 2014 -122, 2013 – 145, 2012 – 130, ……goes on until 2008…consistently for 10 years and counting.

  3. another one very prolific herb researcher, 1 in 8 – 10 days for the last 8 years…supervisor (Texas Spice) of this person had a history of investigation and was popular on retraction watch…2020 – 33 already, 2019 – 46, 2018 – 45, 2017 – 30, 2016 – 31, 2015 – 27, 2014 – 27….goes on…cancer biology.

  4. Politically incorrect: not all researchers are equal even if we account for all other relevant parameters like opportunities, race …. I believe that only very talented and abstract oriented people should receive a PhD. For a graduate program one needs at least an 120 IQ and an insane amount of work. For a PhD one should need more than that in the direction of his speciality. Sorry for all I hurt but this is what i think and I’m just a Bsc so you can shred me to pieces.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.