Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance.
The week at Retraction Watch featured:
- Scientist goes to court to clear his name after fake peer review retractions
- Science paper on sense of taste gets expression of concern as university investigates
- Biotech exec stole an image and reused others while in academia, US federal watchdog says
Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 276. There are more than 37,000 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):
- Theranos founder “Elizabeth Holmes Is Sentenced to More Than 11 Years for Fraud.” In 2018, we wondered “What should happen to a paper published by Theranos?”
- Work by one of science’s most prolific fraudsters continues to be cited.
- “Accused of hiding ties to China, Sherry Chen wins nearly $2 million from US government.”
- In Brazil, “Approximately 30% of the universities do not have the official office for research integrity or any publicly available guidelines.”
- “Study touting hydrogen…was funded by gas interests, e-mails show.”
- “Everyone benefits from the filters for rigour, excellence and trust that scholarly journals should provide.” A Nature journal grades eLife’s new model.
- “Knowledge, opinions and experiences of researchers regarding ethical regulation of biomedical research in Benin.”
- A paper about predatory journals retracted last year by a Springer Nature title after another publisher objected to it has been republished.
- “Meta Trained an AI on 48M Science Papers. It Was Shut Down After 2 Days.”
- “Editor quits over ‘ultimatum’ to add female author to collection.”
- A journal accuses the wrong authors of plagiarism.
- How are journalists reporting on preprints?
- “To fix peer review, break it into stages,” says Olavo Amaral.
- “Only a small percentage of preprints posted in 2020 in bioRxiv and medRxiv received comments in these platforms.” Will this preprint get more?
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].