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Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 213.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 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].