Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work?
The week at Retraction Watch featured:
- Exclusive: Deepfake pioneer to lose two papers after misconduct finding of faked data
- Scholar calls journal decision on ‘comfort women’ paper ‘rotten at the core’
- Former Harvard researchers lose PNAS paper for reusing data
- Did David Hume retract 2 essays on immorality to avoid religious controversy?
- Prominent Korean heart doctor earns two retractions in a month
Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 289.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):
- “Prolific autism researcher has two dozen papers retracted.”
- “Former Penn State professor sues school alleging discrimination, misuse of funds and more.”
- “Fudged CV, plagiarism — accusations haunt Kanpur University V-C now under CBI probe.”
- “Nonhuman ‘Authors’ and Implications for the Integrity of Scientific Publication and Medical Knowledge.”
- “What Makes Your Research Trustworthy? Threats and Opportunities.” A conference featuring our Ivan Oransky.
- “The letter as a forum to embed ethics into the scientific literature.”
- “The argument for adopting a jurisprudence platform for scientific misconduct.”
- “In Defense of the Netherlands Research Integrity Code.”
- “ChatGPT: our study shows AI can produce academic papers good enough for journals – just as some ban it.”
- “Winner take all science: Is it helpful for things to work this way?”
- “UKRIO to explore ‘tensions’ on research misconduct in review.”
- “He said scuba diving in Fiji was ‘research.’ Now he owes the feds $375K.”
- The World Association of Medical Editors has created guidelines for the use of ChatGPT and other chatbots.
- “A.I. Like ChatGPT Is Revealing the Insidious Disease at the Heart of Our Scientific Process.”
- A way to “avoid statistical reporting errors” during peer review.
- “Reviewers: intercept weaponization of genetics.”
- A Johnson & Johnson subsidiary that alleged fraud in a paper about mesothelioma makes claims about another article.
- “International consensus is needed to deal with questionable practices in authorship.”
- “We conclude that a widely available AI for generated images is not a threat to integrity, yet, but may be in the near future.”
- “Citing ‘Deception,’ Not ‘Espionage,’ Judge in KU Case Imposes Supervised Release, Not Jail.”
- “Identity theft victims back legal action against journals.”
- “Who should take responsibility for integrity in research?”
- “The column by a first-time external contributor was based on inflammatory, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories and as such never should have been published.”
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].