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:

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 149.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

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 team@retractionwatch.com.

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

  1. “MIT and HHMI fire prominent biologist for sexual harassment.”

    The Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) on Friday fired the prominent biologist David Sabatini after an investigation of his workplace behavior. Sabatini at the same time resigned from the Whitehead Institute, the non-profit research organization in Cambridge, Massachusetts where his large HHMI-supported lab was located.

    Extensive pubpeer record.

  2. “MIT and HHMI fire prominent biologist for sexual harassment.” – pubpeer records started to appear few years ago. Unfortunately, it appears that it is a bit late effect. It has happened, i pity his staff/researchers and of course, collaborators all over the world, who should be feeling the pinch now. Honestly, this is serious.

  3. There is a lot of suspicious data from Sabatini’s lab on pubpeer.

    Luckily for Sabatini, Cell tends not to retract papers. The Cell 1994 paper which he is first author on and I assume made his career has some gel splicing issues that seem very suspicious.


    A lot of the first authors on his papers have pubpeer records, and have gone on to take positions at top academic institutions —-I don’t feel sorry for them. I feel sorry for the individuals who worked in his lab who were perfectly honest.

    This is what happens when you have individuals with a lot of ambition to be famous, powerful, and well-paid people in science.

  4. The retraction by NICE of the proposed guideline on ME/ CFS because of “expert disagreement” simply adds to the evidence from the last decade that this subject is hardly worth scientific investigation. The proponents of opposing views should perhaps set up their own religions to make everyone happy.

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.