Weekend reads: A museum of scientific misconduct?; authorship misconduct; uproar over renamed phyla

Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance.

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• ‘This is really ridiculous’: An author admitted plagiarism. His supervisor asked for a retraction. The publisher said, “nah.”
• University of Rochester cancer researchers included ‘incorrect images’ in 13 papers, committee finds
• Cancer journal with hefty retraction record retracts another 15
• Authors unhappy as “battlefield acupuncture” paper earns an expression of concern
• Paper on ‘language reclamation’ and decolonization plagiarized from eight papers, journal acknowledges

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 206. There are now more than 32,000 retractions in our database — which now powers retraction alerts in EndNote, Papers, and Zotero. And have you seen our leaderboard of authors with the most retractions lately — or our list of top 10 most highly cited retracted papers?

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

• “[A]n idea for a Museum of Scholarly Misconduct.”
• “The vexing but persistent problem of authorship misconduct in research.”
• “The names that microbiologists had been using to that point were rendered out of date, creating a disconnect between all previous research and upcoming discoveries.”
• What are the lessons of the Theranos case? And: Holmes’ peer-reviewed paper.
• “How fake science is infiltrating scientific journals.” RW readers will find many of the anecdotes familiar.
• “There should be far more [retractions], and anyone who thinks that’s controversial hasn’t been paying attention.”
• A researcher has earned a one-year ban on funding from the German Research Foundation for misconduct.
• “Chemistry textbooks still portray men as scientists while women perform domestic duties.”
• “US to unify grant application disclosures after Lieber conviction.”
• “The description and comments lacked appropriate context and have been removed from the obituary.”
• “Professor takes on China’s biggest academic database – and wins.”
• A solicitor general requests a retraction from the Times of India.
• “Complainant against plagiarism now faces Calicut varsity inquiry.”
• arXiv posted its 2,000,000th article this week.
• A letter in the CMAJ says “a more detailed explanation for retraction is needed” in the case of a letter about the hijab.
• “5 Things We Learned About Journal Peer Review in 2021.”
• “Can a paid model for peer review be sustainable when the author can decide whether to pay or not?”
• “Research done wrong: A comprehensive investigation of retracted publications in COVID-19.”
• “Of these one thousand three hundred and ninety-six retracted publications, two hundred and eighty-three had been cited one thousand and ninety-six times in systematic reviews.”
• “At what point does incompetence become fraud?”
• “The top 23 most highly compensated received $6.32 million, of which $3.00 million (47.6%) was undisclosed.”
• An anesthesiologist found guilty of misconduct in more than 140 articles has three retracted.
• “Characteristics of retracted editorial articles in the biomedical literature.”
• “The role of collegiality in academic review, promotion, and tenure.“
• Technological University “Dublin had 445 cases of alleged cheating in online exams during pandemic.”
• “F.B.I. Arrests Man Accused of Stealing Unpublished Book Manuscripts.”
• Fakery: It’s everywhere. Including bourbon.
• An author’s note featuring Run-D.M.C. and the Beastie Boys. (Hat tip: Mark Lewis)

---

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, like us on Facebook, follow us on LinkedIn, 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].

---