Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work?
The week at Retraction Watch featured:
- ‘Kafkaesque nightmare’: Judge wants researcher reinstated as NIH grant PI after med school’s misconduct finding
- Publisher investigating “serious concerns” about article on ivermectin, COVID, and the microbiome
- J&J subsidiary alleges fraud in paper that linked cosmetic talc with mesothelioma
- Springer Nature retracts chapter on sign language deaf scholars called “extremely offensive”
Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 289. There are more than 38,000 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):
- “For Epistemic Respect – Against Reviewer 2.”
- “Study: PhD Researchers Forced to Grant ‘Guest Authorships.'”
- A US “Federal watchdog finds problems with NIH oversight of grant funding bat virus research in China.”
- “Science journals ban listing of ChatGPT as co-author on papers.” Nature sets out rules for AI chatbots. And another journal drafts a policy for authors.
- “Our results suggest that these models can capture the concepts in the scholarly text and produce high-quality revisions…”
- “Publish less, disrupt more.”
- “Is science really getting less disruptive — and does it matter if it is?”
- A US “Federal watchdog finds problems with NIH oversight of grant funding bat virus research in China.”
- “Dhaka University develops plagiarism punishment policy.”
- “The falsifications in science are getting better – and so are those who fight them.”
- “Taiwan ministry demands money back from Acer in plagiarism case.”
- “German universities taking six years to act on plagiarism claims.”
- “A review of ecotherapy and implications for the COVID-19 pandemic” is retracted.
- “A U.S. judge lectures the government on how academic research works.”
- “Acclaimed University of Michigan researcher leaves after articles retracted.”
- “Methodological review boards would threaten scientific creativity,” says Andrew Barnas. Original proposal here.
- “How do journals deal with problematic articles? Editorial response of journals to articles commented in PubPeer.”
- “CNET’s AI Journalist Appears to Have Committed Extensive Plagiarism.”
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].