Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance.
The week at Retraction Watch featured:
- How to find evidence of paper mills using peer review comments
- Journal retracts a paper it published with a missing table after author fails to provide it
- Which takes longer to produce: An infant who can sit on his own, or a retraction?
- Publisher retracts 350 papers at once
- Authors whose Springer Nature book was retracted for plagiarism solicit chapters for another
- A U.S. federal science watchdog made just three findings of misconduct in 2021. We asked them why.
Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 213. There are now more than 32,000 retractions in our database — which now powers retraction alerts in EndNote, LibKey, 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):
- “How Much Published Crap Will We Put Up With?”
- “A Randomized Approach to Awarding Grants.”
- “Problems in Science Publishing.” Episode four of a podcast featuring our Ivan Oransky and many others.
- “Elsevier’s work with fossil fuel companies ‘drags us towards disaster’, climate researcher says.”
- “DOJ ending Trump-era ‘China Initiative’; national security program fueled Asian ‘intolerance, bias.'”
- “Corruption in higher education is holding Indonesia back.”
- “If we are not already cyborg researchers, then the promise is that we soon will be.”
- “The giant plan to track diversity in research journals.”
- “Women outnumbered among editors of top journals in neuroscience, but not in autism.” And a Q&A with the study’s lead author.
- “Sci-Hub downloads show countries where pirate paper site is most used.”
- “Science proves to be messy on the fly.”
- “Russian invasion of Ukraine threatens hundreds of clinical trials.”
- “A practical decision tree to support editorial adjudication of submitted parallel cluster randomized controlled trials.”
- A French agency finds deviations in practices by hydroxychloroquine champion Didier Raoult.
- The Delhi High Court blocked the publication of a letter alleging plagiarism by an historian.
- A podcast interview of our Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky.
- “The C.D.C. Isn’t Publishing Large Portions of the Covid Data It Collects.”
- “Addressing the Continued Circulation of Retracted Research as a Design Problem.”
- “Eponyms in science: famed or framed?”
- “Why does it take so long to resolve publication ethics cases?” Renee Hoch, Senior Editor & Manager of the PLOS Publication Ethics Team, explains.
- “KRMS News would like to apologize to both our listeners and the Lodge for not reporting on both sides at the time of the story’s release.”
- “Fake Data Pretend:” An ode, via R.E.M.
- A former Fukuoka Dental College professor faked data and plagiarized. The college did not name the faculty member.
- “Just about every academic out there encounters academic misconduct at some point in their career, and knowing how to address it would be really helpful before it happens.”
- Sorry, scam journals, but you’ll have to try harder. At least harder than the “International Journal of Current Research” did.
- Another scam email: Pay $4,500 — down from $5,500! — to attend our Dubai workshop and we will nominate you for an honorary degree.
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].