Weekend reads: Should ‘peer reviewers be paid?’; Kim Kardashian and conflicts of interest; scandal costs millions in grants

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

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 221. There are more than 33,000 retractions in our database — which powers retraction alerts in EndNoteLibKeyPapers, 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):

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 team@retractionwatch.com.

One thought on “Weekend reads: Should ‘peer reviewers be paid?’; Kim Kardashian and conflicts of interest; scandal costs millions in grants”

  1. “The moral panic over the impact of so-called predatory publishers continues unabated.”

    The author argues that criticism of predatory / parasitical publishers is a Bad Thing because
    (1) ‘Legitimate’ publishers are really no better, having adopted many of the strategies of predatory ones as part of the OA paradigm; and
    (2) As collateral damage, it injures the OA paradigm.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.