Weekend reads: How COVID-19 has changed publications; peer review and women; is ‘manuscript recycling’ OK?

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:

• Journal becomes “victim of an organized rogue editor network”
• Researcher linked to author with 52 retractions loses a paper for duplication
• PLOS ONE retracts paper purporting to be about lung ultrasound for COVID-19 but that had suspicious overlap with pre-pandemic article
• JAMA journal retracts its first paper, on exercise and heart disease
• “This retraction is one of the fastest I ever experienced after reporting a paper to a journal editor.”
• Columbia grad student faked data in study of socioeconomics and life experiences, says retraction notice
• Holy cow: “The article as written contains misleading information and omits important details.”

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 74.

Here’s what was happening elsewhere (some of these items may be paywalled, metered access, or require free registration to read):

• “Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the majority of research is composed by publications without original data.”
• COVID-19 paper reviewers make “fewer requests for additional experiments…and different suggestions to address too strong claims.”
• “[O]ur findings suggest that peer review and editorial processes do not penalize manuscripts by women.” A new study.
• A journal says “the practice of moderate manuscript recycling is acceptable if it does not infringe on the four suggested principles of academic work.”
• “Day is accused in the lawsuit of doing ‘shoddy’ research, falsifying at least one experiment and creating a hostile work environment for El-Sawy based on his disdain for her.”
• “Our findings suggest that authors often disregard advice from peer reviewers after rejection.”
• “The internationally renowned psychologist Hans-Ulrich Wittchen is said to have falsified an important clinical study.”
• “Starting this year, Chinese education authorities will institute random checks on students’ undergraduate theses to crack down on plagiarism, ghostwriting, and other forms of academic misconduct.”
• “2021 Update to ORI File Submission Process during Public Health Emergency for Coronavirus (COVID-19) in the United States.”
• “A science impact framework to measure impact beyond journal metrics.”
• Cell Press “will soon launch a new initiative across the majority of the primary research journals at Cell Press designed to give authors a mechanism to share with us information related to inclusion and diversity that is relevant for their paper.”
• “[R]esults suggest that women researchers tend to adopt Gold OA slightly more than their male counterparts (21.1% vs. 19.6%), in all disciplines except agricultural science.”
• “Can Publishers Maintain Control of the Scholarly Record?”
• “University College London has expressed ‘deep regret’ for its role in the propagation of eugenics…”
• “A doctor who was struck off in 2013 for lying and plagiarising others’ work in documents he completed for his GP training has been restored to the medical register at his second attempt.”
• “Newly appointed Boğaziçi University rector accused of plagiarism.”
• “Social Media COVID-19 Misinformation Interventions Viewed Positively, But Have Limited Impact,” says a new preprint.
• “At Science Advances, serious scientific integrity issues are rare,” less than 0.1% of submissions.
• “Although Iranian retracted publications represent small portion of all Iranian publications, but the number of retracted publications has increased.”
• “We in fact argue that the singular use of [journal impact factor] quartiles is a second order ecological fallacy.” A new paper in Scientometrics.
• “Why an automated tracker finds poor sharing of clinical trial results for an academic sponsor: a bibliometric analysis.”
• Wiley has acquired Hindawi.
• After considerable effort spent on critiques, journal “will expect that criticisms of published papers be written as Comments and submitted to us through Editorial Manager” to be reviewed by “software that appropriately archives all steps in the process.”
• “One year into #pruittdata, how have citing authors reacted? Here are the numbers.”
• “The State of Replications in Economics — a 2020 Review (Part 3)“
• “Look: Doctors bury their mistakes. Lawyers lock theirs away. But reporters print theirs for the whole damn world to see.”

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].