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:
- Journals flag concerns in three dozen papers by nutrition researchers
- Journal drops the ball as it tries to juggle an embargo request and Elsevier’s temporary removal policy
- Author blames “multitasking dementia” for duplicated cancer paper
- Journal that published paper about a black hole at the center of Earth sinks into the void at a leading government database
- Researcher leaves post at Australian university years after papers come under scrutiny
Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 38.
Here’s what was happening elsewhere:
- Didier Raoult, “who touts the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine as a coronavirus treatment – without evidence, scientists say – will appear before a disciplinary panel charged with ethics breaches, an order of doctors has said.”
- A philosopher “has plagiarized the writings of a number of scholars in several of her published works,” say journal editors.
- A third researcher has joined the list of authors with at least 100 retractions. See our leaderboard.
- A scientific sleuth finds 46 problematic papers from a Royan Institute professor.
- Is “plagiarism soup” anything like “alphabet soup?”
- “Another complaint of academic theft has been filed with the registrar of the Peshawar University against faculty members of the environment department.”
- “The Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology (MANIT), Bhopal, has asked its research scholars to ask for permission from the Dean or the Director before they publish their work in any journal.”
- “The Nelson Mandela University (NMU) has parted ways with its adjunct professor Christian Adendorff over a R2.2m plagiarism scandal…”
- “Does retraction after misconduct have an impact on citations? A pre–post study.”
- What does it mean to “retract” a taxonomic paper?
- “In response to researcher noncompliance with ethical and regulatory provisions governing research with humans, protocol deviations, and unanticipated problems with research, institutional review boards (IRBs) or institutions sometimes impose restrictions on the use of research data, although specific cases in which this happens are unlikely to be known publicly.”
- “Improving The Detection of Plagiarism in Scientific Articles Using Machine Learning Approaches.”
- Does pre-data-collection peer review increase replicability?
- India’s “Osmania University adopts harsher anti-plagiarism norms to raise the bar of research standards.”
- Times Higher Education “asked SNSI for evidence that Sci-Hub was stealing more than just journal articles, but received no response.”
- What those who treat autism should know about retractions, from the Association for Science in Autism Treatment.
- A study “found a high rate of plagiarism among postgraduate pharmacy students in Jordan despite their awareness and understanding.”
- Could this be a way to detect Western blot and PCR image manipulation?
- “China’s ‘paper mills’ are grinding out fake scientific research at an alarming rate,” reports Isobel Cockerell of Coda.
- “Research fraud: a long-term problem exacerbated by the clamour for research grants,” says Lee Harvey.
- “Scientific integrity tested by the Covid-19 pandemic.”
- “Dear Professor, how honest are you?”
- What are the risks and challenges of preprints? asks JAMA, publishing papers about medRxiv and rigor in preprints.
- “The Problem With Preprints in Clinical Science,” from Perry Wilson.
- A call for better data on masks and COVID-19.
- “Publication delay adjusted impact factor: The effect of publication delay of articles on journal impact factor.“
- A retraction, of sorts, from Mike Rowe.
- “Newspapers are less likely to mention side effects of drugs produced by their advertising clients or to report on US Food and Drug Administration alerts regarding these drugs.”
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].
At tea this morning with my wife (yes, we are fans of Masterpiece Theater, etc., etc.) My wife pointed out that her first husband was a patent attorney and had to be very, very careful in his literature searches to ensure that something related to a patent hadn’t been previously published.
I realized that this may be a major driver of all this “fake” publishing: “Get published first as a marker for later copyright or patents.” I’m not in science or education, merely a very concerned (umm…appalled) citizen regarding the state of “truth” in our culture. Perhaps all those MAGA-hats actually do have a valid point: can they really trust science? Ouch. 🤯
Perhaps you, with a clear concern for, commitment to, and knowledge of this subject, could write a major article (say, for The Atlantic, NY Times, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair) identifying the prime drivers of all these retractions: Achieving tenure? Corporatism? Qualifying for Ph.Ds? Other? And how are they ranked?
Thanks for your important work!
Would it be possible for there to be a notation next to links in the Weekend Reads when the link directs to a paywalled article?
Very much agreed to this, lots of the time I clicked on the link to get directed to an article behind paywall…annoying.
+1
Raoult is being hounded because of his early research into hydroxychloroquine.
Accinelli’s paper showed that the key variable in HCQ treatment is that it should begin within 72 hours to minimize mortality from covid. This is strong evidence that Raoult was correct, but just missed a key variable.
Accinelli’s paper also shows the mud on the face of the FDA, which said, “Hospitalized patients were likely to have greater prospect of benefit (compared to ambulatory patients with mild illness) and could be more closely monitored for potential toxicity, although it
was recognized that enrollment in a clinical trial would be the best option when using these drugs so that data on safety and effectiveness could be obtained.”
Clearly, based on Accinelli, treatment within 72 hours of symptom onset is key to prevent covid progression…after all, hospitalized patients went through the phase of being ambulatory with mild illness.
It’s really a shame that Accinelli’s paper has been overlooked by almost all.
ANSM imposes severe sanctions against Didier Raoult’s institute, including the suspension of research and two injunctions placing it under temporary guardianship.
https://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/sciences/ihu-l-ansm-prononce-de-severes-sanctions-contre-l-institut-de-didier-raoult_2175170.html