Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance.
The week at Retraction Watch featured:
- Japanese university recommends five retractions after investigating botany researcher
- ‘Our deepest apology’: Journal retracts 30 likely paper mill articles after investigation published by Retraction Watch
Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 246. There are more than 34,000 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):
- Why do retracted papers in anesthesiology and intensive care medicine continue getting cited?
- “Do retraction practices work effectively?” A look at citations of retracted psychology papers.
- By our count, at least ten papers about ivermectin and COVID-19 have been retracted. A list.
- “Making sense of preprints by adding context – The Publish Your Reviews initiative.”
- “Authorship Issues When Articles are Retracted Due to Research Misconduct and Then Resubmitted.”
- “Cassava Sciences’ new drug has no shortage of supporters and critics volleying accusations of misconduct, conflicts of interest, and online harassment.”
- “The Lost Art of Composing Single-Panel Figures.”
- “Changing word meanings in biomedical literature reveal pandemics and new technologies.”
- “Minority scholars urge judges to quit ‘exclusionary’ law journal,” the Law Quarterly Review.
- Ten months after the U.S. ORI announced they’d found a biotech founder had faked data, one of the papers he agreed to retract has been retracted.
- “The Science and Politics of Journal Retractions.”
- What role do bibliometrics “have beyond the institutional contexts in which…they were designed?”
- “The Dubious Botanist.”
- “PhD’s ‘please don’t steal my work’ plea sparks national debate.”
- “Columbia U. Won’t Submit Data to ‘U.S. News’ Rankings After Professor Alleged False Information.”
- Among COVID-19 preprints, “we are unable to find markers of either open data or open code for 75% of those on arXiv, 67% of those on bioRxiv, and 79% of those on medRxiv.”
- “How to find, read and organize papers.”
- “Plan S funders embrace journal-free versions of peer review.”
- Conflicts of interest at point-of-care databases.
- “How the Ukraine war is changing publications.”
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution 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].