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Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 219.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 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].

---