Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance.
The week at Retraction Watch featured:
- Paper on “suspicious activities” on India-China border retracted
- ‘[T]he authors plagiarised a large amount of text, but…retractions should not be used as a tool to punish authors’
- Court injunction forces gastro journal to slap expressions of concern on 40 articles about probiotics
- Expressions of concern mount for heart researchers over data provenance
- Wiley snafu costs an early-stage researcher his first paper
Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 208. 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):
- “Peer review is both the greatest strength and the greatest weakness of the scientific research system.”
- A “model of academia without pre-publication peer review.”
- “Why bogus science journals are thriving in the era of COVID-19.”
- “What to expect from post-pandemic publishing.”
- “COVID Is Changing the Dynamics of Medical Research and Publishing.”
- “Their conclusions came as a big surprise:” “New Mendel University Rector found guilty of misconduct.”
- “A thread on an AGU bulletin board emerged demanding that an AGU journal return to allowing the practice of comments and replies.”
- How consistent are peer reviewers?
- “Should research be trusted?” A recording of an interview with Ivan Oransky, our co-founder.
- “Higher education must stop covering up misconduct.”
- “A Jan. 19 letter to Tessmer — sent by the law firm Plunkett Cooney on behalf of Baker — demanded she retract her statements, which it described as ‘false and defamatory.'”
- “Correction of the scientific production: publisher performance evaluation using a dataset of 4844 PubMed retractions.”
- “Continued Use of Retracted Publications: Implications for Information Systems and Scientific Publishing.”
- “Tobacco publishing ban for researchers at industry-owned firms.”
- “Overall, 20% of respondents admitted sacrificing the quality of their publications for quantity, and 14% reported that funders interfered in their study design or reporting.”
- How many Ph.D. candidates are willing to publish findings based on fraudulent data?
- “What’s integrity got to do with it? Second-year experiences of the Path2Integrity e-learning programme.”
- Finish this: “The existence of Science Advances implies the existence of…“
- “At what point do academics forego citations for journal status?”
- Harvard researchers retract a paper from Nature Neuroscience.
- “Nature does open access,” courtesy of comedian Dr. Glaucomflecken.
- “Ivermectin for COVID-19: Addressing Potential Bias and Medical Fraud.”
- “Scientists may have an incentive to (artificially) make their abstracts more complex to read.”
- “Massive open index of scholarly papers launches.”
- “How the FDA could save 2,700 clinical trials from becoming research waste.”
- “How do things work at top econ journals, exactly? This is one weird-ass story.”
- There are at least 31 videos on YouTube explaining the h-index. Who knew?
- Please tell us what this paper on “brain washing systems” means.
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 [email protected].