Weekend reads: ‘Who Cares About Publication Integrity?’; revealing a Galileo forgery; repeat predatory journal authors

Our co-founder Ivan Oransky turns 50 today, and we know what he’d really like for his birthday: 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Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 254. There are more than 35,000 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 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 team@retractionwatch.com.

One thought on “Weekend reads: ‘Who Cares About Publication Integrity?’; revealing a Galileo forgery; repeat predatory journal authors”

  1. Thanks Retraction Watch for giving attention to the thoughtful article by Prof. Raymond De Vries “Why Scientist Might Cheat.”

    Given that title refers to “Cheating,” it is useful to remember that at least 1% of scientist are also sociopaths. In that regard, in being people first, scientists are no different than lawyers, televangelists, and even members of congress. (Somewhere I recall that 7% of images submitted in insurance claims might be false, so image falsification is not unique to scientists.)

    Yet discussions about research misconduct rarely take the opportunity to point out that science is virtually unique by being the only profession that is also interested in correcting the record. And revelations of misconduct are also the result of competition that Prof, De Vries right points out as a contributing factor..

    Considering the partisan challenges to Science today, when reporting misconduct today one ought find a way to remind nonscientists that the some weaknesses of science also reveal its strength.

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Your email address will not be published.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.