Weekend reads: A White House official’s retraction; ‘bosom peril;’ nonsense with a forged authorship

Would you consider a 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Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 206. There are now more than 32,000 retractions in our database — which now powers retraction alerts in EndNotePapers, 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):

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a one-time tax-deductible contribution by PayPal or by Square, or a monthly tax-deductible donation by Paypal 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.

7 thoughts on “Weekend reads: A White House official’s retraction; ‘bosom peril;’ nonsense with a forged authorship”

  1. “Misconduct in research administration“ – $47 to read this article, and a request to the corresponding author yielded a message that he would not be checking his messages for the foreseeable future. Haven’t see that before for a newly published article. Too bad. Most researchers I know have a running battle with their administrators not to skim too much overhead off, not to divert funding, …. Often situations are not black or white, but some are.

  2. Re: “An article full of nonsense with a scientist’s name above it.”

    The article linked to this title is in some language other than English. Not that every article in the world should be in English, but this website is in English so I assumed all the articles in it would be written in English or at least transcribed to English. Rather a let down.

  3. I can’t help wondering how well a properly constructed simulated data set would pass the checks described in the Carlisle paper. I expect most cheats fail because they don’t have access to someone with a statistics PhD. Sometimes the problem is that a study looks too good. I saw a survey where the response rate was 96%. Maybe they threatened the non-responders.

  4. JL, I use Chrome and when I click on content written in other languages, I am able to read it in English with just one additional click of my mouse. See the following from https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/173424?hl=en&co=GENIE.Platform%3DDesktop

    Translate webpages in Chrome
    When you come across a page written in a language you don’t understand, you can use Chrome to translate the page.

    On your computer, open Chrome.
    Go to a webpage written in another language.
    At the top, click Translate.
    Chrome will translate the webpage this one time.
    Not working? Try refreshing the webpage. If it’s still not working, right-click anywhere on the page. Then, click Translate to [Language].

  5. Re: “ICMR’s Nivedita Gupta accused of ‘image manipulation, plagiarism’ in 2 papers, denies charge.”

    The problem in India is a complete lack of accountability. India has become synonymous with dubious and unethical research practices. It forms the geographic base for a large number of predatory publishers. However, there is no accountability in the government academic system. Dr. Gupta has nothing to fear, no matter who cries foul. She can continue blatant unscientific practices and her job will still be safe. She may even get promotions and awards if she can keep her superiors 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.