Weekend reads: Fraud in a study of dishonesty; scrutiny of an open access publisher; HHMI prof fired for sexual harassment

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:

• WHO COVID-19 library contains hundreds of papers from hijacked journals
• Will the real hottest month on record please stand up?
• Biotech co-founder faked data in NIH-funded research, says federal watchdog
• The decade-long saga capped by a $215,000 settlement with the US government
• Authors crop estimate that was off by a factor of 60 — or $3 trillion
• Meet the alleged brain surgeon who squats on domains, punks journals and listed Wolf Blitzer as a co-author

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 149.

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

• “Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Field Experiment About Dishonesty.” An earlier post about work by one of the same authors. And additional reporting by BuzzFeed’s Stephanie Lee.
• “Journal citation reports and the definition of a predatory journal: The case of the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI).” MDPI responds.
• “HHMI fires prominent biologist for sexual harassment.” [Updated as Science has updated their story.]
• “University to review plagiarism claims against ‘China’s Dr Fauci.'”
• Hottest retraction ever?
• “Backpedaling: Authors of Study on Racist Rulings Retract Their Claims Against Pennsylvania, New Jersey Judges.”
• “Didier Raoult, who promoted hydroxychloroquine treatment, may not be able to continue his research.”
• “Our findings deepen the understanding of why retraction does not stop citation and demonstrate that the vast majority of post-retraction citations in biomedicine do not document the retraction.”
• “It does strike me that part of reviewer training needs to be a frank discussion about saying ‘no’ to a review request.”
• “Biomedical Authorship: Common Misconducts and Possible Scenarios for Disputes.“
• “Dr. Death: Miracle Man.” A podcast on Paolo Macchiarini.
• “Peer review is not the best way to promote major breakthroughs,” argues Donald Braben.
• “There was an attempt to hijack a journal…” A story (with some levity) from Cabell’s International.
• “Is the process to retract fabricated randomised clinical trials in reproductive medicine working sufficiently?”
• “AI writing tools promise faster manuscripts for researchers,” but “Automation brings plagiarism risks, and software still needs human input for analysis and narrative.”
• “Family of UF grad student who died by suicide files legal claim against university.” Background here.
• “Three questions to address rigour and reproducibility concerns in your grant proposal.”
• “Researchers say a ban on preprint material citations in funding applications is a ‘remarkably stupid own-goal for Australian science.’”
• “No one goes into science because they really love bureaucracy and filling out forms.” Adds Joseph Esposito, a publishing industry consultant: “Publication in a highly ranked journal is all the transparency you need.”
• “Should old or superseded papers ever be retracted?” A reflection on that from 2012.
• “Strengthening research integrity: which topic areas should organisations focus on?”
• “African Origins of Olmec Civilization — Debunked.” Our Ivan Oransky talks about a retraction we covered in 2020.
• “Perth boy Rehan Somaweera has become one of Australia’s youngest authors of a scientific paper.”
• “This Colombian Ran A Fun-Run To Help Women Scientists Publish Their Research.”
• “[T]he legal representation for the platform [Sci-Hub] in India against the lawsuit filed by…publication companies, is the first of its kind.”
• “Small study hints that interference from bodies funding research into public-health issues such as nutrition and exercise might be more common than realized.”
• Octopus “plans to ‘provide a new ‘primary research record’ for recording and appraising research ‘as it happens.'”
• “Lack of agreement forces NICE to pause publication of ME/CFS guideline.”
• “Some students still cheat despite thinking it is illegal, international survey finds.”
• “Structural Racism and Scientific Journals—A Teachable Moment.” And updated guidance from JAMA.
• “Student Journalists Wrote About Allegations Against a Professor. Then the Articles Disappeared.”

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].