Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance.
The week at Retraction Watch featured:
- Cancer researcher faked data for 24 images in work funded by nine NIH grants: Federal watchdog
- The author of a retracted paper learns to be careful what he wishes for
- Journals acknowledge that a critical “reader” has a name: Elisabeth Bik
Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 219. There are more than 33,000 retractions in our database — which 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):
- “Open access loses when publishers are vilified.”
- “Russian site peddles paper authorship in reputable journals for up to $5000 a pop.” Background.
- “Is it all bafflegab? – Linguistic and meta characteristics of research articles in prestigious economics journals.”
- “Lawsuit Alleges USDA Secretly Relaxed Animal Welfare Inspections.”
- “Time to recognize authorship of open data.”
- “WNYC’s Jami Floyd accused of plagiarism in 45 articles dating back to 2010.”
- “‘Robot scientist’ Eve finds that less than one third of scientific results are reproducible.” A new paper.
- “Late reprieve allows scientists with UK grants to publish in Nature.”
- “Kansas chemistry professor found guilty of hiding ties to China.”
- A trainee surgeon who “falsely alleged sexual harassment by her supervisors” after leaving them off a paper is struck off.
- “We investigated the Retraction Watch Database and found that, in total, 51 papers authored by the Iran-affiliated [Highly Cited Researchers] HCRs were retracted from 2006 to 2019.”
- “Max Planck archaeology director removed after alleged bullying.”
- “Prominent biologist David Sabatini out at MIT after breaching sexual relationship policy.”
- A new scam? “Ghost-authoring Book Reviews for Fun and Profit.”
- “Diabeties” and “phones of the body:” More fun with tortured phrases.
- “Do Men Really Publish More than Women?” The authors of two recent studies challenge the assertion.
- “An analysis of retracted articles in the field of pancreatic diseases.”
- “Academic favoritism at work: insider bias in Turkish national journals.”
- “Confronting human rights abuses in the scientific literature,” including one revealed in 1994.
- Despite reforms, “Purging Romania’s PhD plagiarism ‘will take decades,’” say experts.
- “Concussion researcher claims AFL hindered two-year research project into players’ health.”
- “Can Research Lost to Predatory Journals Be Saved?”
- A paper on COVID-19 by “Absol Uteshit DipPsychMed, BIg.BUm., PhD.” Yes, it’s a hoax.
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].
“Open access loses when publishers are vilified.”
Nah, it doesn’t. Nobody even vilifies publishers, people just list the facts about them and that alone paints clear enough a picture of the bullshit of this whole industry. Behind that link is a boring apology that attempts to exploit concepts like decolonisation in order to finally say that the likes of Elsevier and OUP should contribute to the process too.
They may contribute immensely by just disappearing.
Ironically, the text is behind a paywall.