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:
- Palmitoleic acid paper pulled for data concerns
- Pharma company demands retraction, damages in lawsuit against journal
- You want to do what? Paper on anal swabs for COVID-19 retracted for ethical issues
- University in Japan revokes doctorate for plagiarism of text, image
- One in six of the papers you cite in a review has been retracted. What do you do?
- The rector who resigned after plagiarizing a student’s PhD thesis
Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 121.
Here’s what was happening elsewhere (some of these items may be paywalled, metered access, or require free registration to read):
- “The Damage Campaign: Caught up in a storm of false accusations, professors found themselves fighting to clear their names.”
- “Two timber industry advocates who criticised high-profile Australian scientist David Lindenmayer on social media have been forced to retract their comments and apologise.”
- The senior author of a study of the Astra Zeneca COVID-19 vaccine has updated his disclosures after a newspaper story about his lack of transparency.
- “Why Disability Studies Scholars Are Protesting a Prominent Textbook.”
- “International publishers who try to accommodate conflicting regional policies may find themselves caught in the crossfire.”
- John Ioannidis removes a criticized appendix in a COVID-19 paper.
- “Publishing should be a big deal – for the right reasons,” argues Keyan Tomaselli in University World News.
- “Quantum computing’s reproducibility crisis: Majorana fermions.” Background here.
- “How to Handle Co-authorship When Not Everyone’s Research Contributions Make It into the Paper.”
- “When a cardiologist flagged the lack of diversity at premier medical journals, the silence was telling.”
- “A self-correcting fallacy – Why don’t researchers correct their own errors in the scientific record?” More here.
- The U.S. NAS “is moving for the first time to expel sexual harassers.”
- “Why researchers created a database of half a million journal editors.”
- “Views on ethical issues in research labs: A university-wide survey.” A new study.
- U.S. “Federal agencies expanding disclosure requirements for scientists.”
- “The Rise of Preprints Is No Cause for Alarm.”
- “Has the pandemic changed research culture – and is it for the better?”
- A retraction everyone can agree on.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a one-time tax-deductible contribution or a monthly tax-deductible donation 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].
RE the Disability Studies Reader: Why is something called a “textbook” at all if it is simply a compilation of other writings? Why not just compile a “recommended reading” list?
The editor of that thing lost all credibility in my eyes anyway when he came to my university and started self-righteously defending Anna Stubblefield and facilitated communication.