Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance.
The week at Retraction Watch featured:
- Sports medicine researcher Paul McCrory requests another retraction
- Journal editor explains ban on manuscripts from Russian institutions
- NASA researchers retract Nature paper on climate change and evapotranspiration
- Was leading sports medicine researcher’s plagiarism ‘an isolated and unfortunate incident?’
- Author asks ‘Why? Why? And why?’ as his paper is retracted
- ‘This is frankly insulting’: An author plagiarized by a journal editor speaks
Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 213.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):
- “Double life, two wives: Duke-NUS researcher spied on US for Russia.”
- “Concussion expert Dr Paul McCrory tenders resignation from CISG following plagiarism claims.” The move follows our reporting on McCrory’s plagiarism all week, most recently yesterday.
- “Last year, nearly half of Nature authors agreed to publish anonymous referee reports.”
- “Correction of scientific literature: Too little, too late!”
- “Productivity patterns, collaboration and scientific careers of authors with retracted publications in clinical medicine.”
- “International students experience unique challenges that place them at risk for academic misconduct violations, including language, academic expectations, cultural differences, academic preparedness, and policy understanding.”
- “Unlimited access to plagiarism checkers is an invitation to plagiarise.”
- ” A large body of non-quantitative literature argues that many pharmaceutical firms engage in misconduct in order to promote sales and overcome innovation deficits.”
- “A case study showed how difficult it is for academics with no knowledge of [automatic article generators] AAGs to identify this writing.”
- “This is the first direct evidence of a link between publication performance and risk of misconduct and between university ranking and risk of misconduct.”
- “The Chinese science grant system alone is insufficient to reduce funding-relevant research fraud.”
- “Science Knows No Country: Culture’s Impact on Research Misconduct Proceedings.
- “Time to retract Lancet paper on tissue engineered trachea transplants.”
- “Identifying potential barriers and solutions to patient partner compensation (payment) in research.”
- A court “directs The Wire to take down 14 articles against Bharat Biotech, COVAXIN in ₹100 crore defamation suit.“
- “Scientists shouldn’t be allowed to recommend their own peer reviewers.”
- “In a defamation lawsuit, the hype around digital health clashes with scientific criticism.”
- A look at “mega” reviewers”who review more than 100 papers per year.
- A fake journal fools academics in Pakistan. They are not alone, as Anna Abalkina has noted.
- “Offensive or Inclusive Language in Scientific Communication?”
- “We found higher prevalence of misconduct than earlier surveys.”
- “Around one in 12 postgraduate researchers would publish fraudulent results if it helped them get ahead, says study.”
- “The media loves a good headline about an exciting study. But can the way science media covers studies affect the science itself?”
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].