Weekend reads: Fake reproductive health data alleged; ‘bad brains;’ ‘heinous’ misconduct

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Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 258. 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 [email protected].

One thought on “Weekend reads: Fake reproductive health data alleged; ‘bad brains;’ ‘heinous’ misconduct”

  1. Meanwhile, another tranche of retractions from another Special Issue, due to corrupted peer review:
    https://asp-eurasipjournals.springeropen.com/articles?query=%22Retraction+note%22&volume=&searchType=&tab=keyword

    “The Editor-in-Chief and the publisher have retracted this article. The article was submitted to be part of a guest-edited issue. An investigation by the publisher found a number of articles, including this one, with a number of concerns, including but not limited to compromised editorial handling and peer review process, inappropriate or irrelevant references or not being in scope of the journal or guest-edited issue. Based on the investigation’s findings, the Editor-in-Chief therefore no longer has confidence in the results and conclusions of this article.”

Leave a Reply

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