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:
- Two transcendental meditation papers retracted for failures to report primary outcomes.
- The peer reviewers and editor wanted to publish my paper. The legal team rejected it.
- Exclusive: Six years after a misconduct investigation, more than half of suspect papers remain unflagged.
- First, this paper was corrected. Now it has an expression of concern. And maybe, just maybe, it will be retracted.
- Medical journal retracts article on “tribalism” after readers call it offensive
Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 128.
Here’s what was happening elsewhere (some of these items may be paywalled, metered access, or require free registration to read):
- The editor of JAMA resigns after a review of a podcast on racism in medicine. A farewell and next steps.
- “Please Commit More Blatant Academic Fraud.”
- “Machine learning is booming in medicine. It’s also facing a credibility crisis.”
- “While measures to counteract textual plagiarism are well implemented, tools to investigate other forms of research misconduct are rudimentary and labour-intensive.”
- “In this blog post I have gathered the papers by the Raoult and Chabrière group that have image concerns.”
- “Two assistant professors of Pabna University of Science and Technology have allegedly plagiarised from a book in their joint paper published in an academic journal last month.” More here.
- “A theatre scholar is launching a legal challenge to a London drama school’s decision to throw out claims that her PhD supervisor used “unique” ideas from her thesis without attribution.”
- “Can joy and rigor co-exist in science?”
- “Methodology over metrics: Current scientific standards are a disservice to patients and society.”
- “Consistency of causal claims in observational studies: a review of papers published in a general medical journal.”
- “When plagiarism was reported to Voice of America, managers delayed action for months.”
- “Clemson University is pushing back against recommendations by auditors for the National Science Foundation Office of Inspector General (OIG) that it repay $276,440…“
- “Plagiarism charges against [board of education] president divide regional board.”
- Why the distinction between a systematic review and a meta-analysis matters for mask guidelines.
- “Three reprimands later,” a cancer doctor “retains leadership—and mentorship—positions.”
- “I’ve managed to get some really suspicious papers retracted. I’d like to think that this has helped shift the norms in post-publication review and retraction, if only slightly.” Joe Hilgard on leaving academia.
- “The majority of male scientists collaborate solely with males; most female scientists, in contrast, do not collaborate with females at all.”
- “Explanations of Research Misconduct, and How They Hang Together:” A look at the Diederik Stapel case.
- “Retraction rates of research articles addressing COVID-19 pandemic: Is it the evolving COVID epidemiology or scientific misconduct?”
- “The Absurdity of Peer Review: What the pandemic revealed about scientific publishing.”
- “Further, becoming a more skilled researcher is not a protective factor that reduces the chances of scientific misconduct,” says Mark A. Fine.
- “Covid 19: How harm reduction advocates and the tobacco industry capitalised on the pandemic to promote nicotine.” Our earlier coverage of a retraction noted by the piece.
- “Is rapid scientific publication also high quality? Bibliometric analysis of highly disseminated COVID-19 research papers.”
- “The 10,000-watt Bulb: How Preprints Shine a Light on Misconduct.”
- “An estimation of the retraction gap across neurosurgery – a crevice or a chasm?”
- “Stakeholders’ perspectives on research integrity training practices: a qualitative study.”
- “In fact, the article’s claims that Stevie Wonder was dying turned out to be incorrect and they are unequivocally retracted.”
- A retraction from Science Advances prompts a correction in the New York Times.
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].