Weekend reads: False data in Columbia rankings?; data service accused of intimidating researchers; preprint server removes ‘inflammatory’ papers

Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance.

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• Study of cryotherapy for COVID-19 anosmia fails the sniff test
• Psych journal in revolt as it publishes paper saying masturbation and gay sex are harmful
• Award-winning Berkeley postdoc faked data, says federal watchdog
• Murder by Theory: Tales from the Ivory Tower’s Dark Side
• Nanotech researchers cleared of fraud but failed to supervise cheating grad student: University

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 214. There are nearly 33,000 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):

• “Columbia Is Ranked No. 2 by ‘U.S News.’ A Professor Says Its Spot Is Based on False Data.”
• “The Researchfish impact-tracking service has been accused of intimidation and bullying after saying it would report academics to their funders for criticising the system on Twitter.”
• “Preprint server removes ‘inflammatory’ papers in superconductor controversy.”
• “New details emerge about a U.S. scientist’s obscured role in the ‘CRISPR babies’ scandal.”
• Researchers apologize to a scientist with nine retractions. He did not respond when we asked about the circumstances of the apology.
• Among a small group of papers in general medical journals, “Women were underrepresented as original research authors; men were 84% of senior and 69% of first authors.”
• “The dilemmas we have uncovered suggest that peer reviewers engage in thoughtful considerations during the peer-review process.”
• “The use of a validated attitude scale can help assess the effectiveness of educational programs that focus on participants acquiring attitudes that are instrumental in responsible conduct in research.”
• The mayor of a town in Norway has resigned following plagiarism allegations.
• “Bibliometrics as a promising tool for solving publication ethics issues.”
• “One in three PLOS ONE papers contained at least 1 sentence that was a direct copy from another paper.”
• Fraudster Scott “Reuben’s retracted articles were cited 92% more often than the neighbouring non-retracted articles.”
• “A reader recently commented that retractions are difficult to understand in terms of what they mean for readers.”
• “Is anonymity or transparency the best solution to bias in peer review?”
• “Do papers (really) match journals’ ‘aims and scope’?”
• “An open-access history: the world according to Smits: The Plan S architect, scourge of paywalls, reveals how the policy sausage got made.”
• The former vice chancellor for research at UNC-Chapel Hill’s School of Medicine explains why he stepped down following plagiarism. Background here.
• “There is no escape from Reviewer 2.”
• “AFL says it no longer works with concussion expert Dr Paul McCrory.” The latest developments in a high-profile plagiarism case.
• In the UK, “most research council committees lack any representation from black or ethnic minority staff.”
• “8 Connecticut state police recruits terminated for cheating.”

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].