Weekend reads: Plagiarism in biblical scholarship; revelations about publishing ‘lab leak’ preprint; publishing sanctions on Russia

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

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• Einstein fired researcher in 2019, more than two years before ORI finding
• Firing, publishing ban, 15 retractions for author who ‘defrauded’ co-authors in pay-to-publish scheme
• Five studies linked to Cassava Sciences retracted
• Doing the right thing: Neuroscientist announces retractions in ‘the most difficult tweet ever’

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 219. There are more than 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):

• “Biblical Academia Rocked by Scholar’s Pattern of Plagiarism.”
• “He then offered to either entirely delete the preprint or revise it ‘in a way that would leave no record that this had been done.'” Revelations about “the Virus-Hunting Nonprofit at the Center of the Lab-Leak Controversy.”
• “Publishers stop selling services to Russia and Belarus over invasion.”
• Russia won’t emphasize publication in Scopus- and Web of Science-indexed journals.
• “Open access: Brazilian scientists denied waivers and discounts.”
• “Mexican scientists outraged over dismissals of sexual harassment cases.”
• “‘We regret to inform you’—that your scientific manuscripts will be rejected.”
• The U.S. Office of Research Integrity has released its FY2021 report.
• “Scholars based in mainland China were ‘pressured’ into pulling out of a recent Asia studies conference, according to the event’s organisers.”
• “What works for peer review and decision-making in research funding: a realist synthesis.”
• ““There were some errors and changes to citation style—that was what the issue really was.” A “New President Moves Past Old Mistake.”
• “Article containing plagiarised material removed from News24 site.”
• “If this title is funny, will you cite me? Citation impacts of humour and other features of article titles in ecology and evolution.”
• “Vice Chancellor Blames Pressure for Plagiarism; Resigns After Faculty Pushed for Accountability.”
• “[A]s the attribution of literature has grown more complex…attribution has become increasingly vulnerable to systematic bias.”
• “Ekiti varsity warns Professors against plagiarism, sexual harassment.”
• A student newspaper retracts an article because most quotes came from white students.
• “A quarter of medical researchers involved in clinical trials in Australia did not declare funding from pharmaceutical companies.”
• “Judging journals by their covers – What journal titles and mission statements tell us about their publications.”
• “China has overtaken the US when it comes to the highest-impact research,” says a new analysis.
• “[W]e demonstrate first that the alphabetization rate in economics has declined over the last decade.”
• “New Zealand professors in Māori science row quit Royal Society.”
• How the British Journal of Sports Medicine boosted its impact factor dramatically.
• “Epidemiologist’s Criticism of ‘Daysy’ Fertility Tracker are Constitutionally Protected.”
• “A conversation with Mr. Adam Marcus, co-founder of Retraction Watch and editor for Primary Care at Medscape.”
• “Twenty-one survey respondents indicated that they have carried out animal-based experiments for the sole purpose of anticipating reviewer requests.”
• “Even as medicine becomes more diverse, main authors in elite journals remain mostly white and male.”
• “The Three Little Pigs and the Big Bad Wolf: Case studies of peer review.” Note the publication date.
• “The Moose Jaw Today apologizes to the manager and the Super 8 Hotel for having included the quotes in their article and for any harm done to them.”
• “Plagiarism, and How I’d Like To Enjoy It.”

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].