Weekend reads: Scientist in China cleared of plagiarism and fraud charges; “what my retraction taught me;” researcher sued for >$1.5 million for unpaid legal bills in failed defamation cases

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Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 76.

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

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: Scientist in China cleared of plagiarism and fraud charges; “what my retraction taught me;” researcher sued for >$1.5 million for unpaid legal bills in failed defamation cases”

  1. JEAA are reminding Croce there are indeed consequences for ones actions in the real world (even if, in the esteem-based academic parallel universe, OSU was unwilling to offer this lesson after years of, alleged, investigations). Hope JEAA prevail in being made whole.

  2. The high profile scientist issue in the China is a joke. As long the CCP is there, there might be no honest scientific work being done there.

  3. Re Cao:

    As I noted on Twitter, “In other words, if a scientist is well connected in China, data falsification is fine. 20 years of data fakery = 1 year funding ban.

    I think *any* research out of China should be looked on with great skepticism until they take research publications more seriously.”

    1. The Cao case certainly seems problematic. However, my impression is that, over the years, there have been way too many instances in the US in which cases of misconduct of ‘well-connected’, senior researchers, especially who bring lots of grant dollars to an institution, often result in little to no real consequences to these offenders (at least at the institutional level), relative to investigations of ‘less productive’ and/or untenured individuals, which are more likely to result in more serious consequences. If there is some real basis for the above observation, and other considerations aside (e.g., more paper mills originate from China), might a call to some skepticism of *any* research coming out of the US be similarly justifiable?

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.