Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work?
The week at Retraction Watch featured:
- In unusual move, publishers remove authors victimized by forger
- Paper co-authored by controversial Australian journalist earns expression of concern
- Nearly 20 Hindawi journals delisted from leading index amid concerns of papermill activity
- A journal editor once told us authors were free to publish ‘bullshit and fiction.’ Apparently his publisher disagrees.
Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to more than 300. There are more than 39,000 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):
- “A Shark Discovery ‘Didn’t Look Right.’ It Might Have Been a Plastic Toy.” And now it’s retracted.
- “Why this scientist has spent decades fighting Toronto hospitals.”
- “Welcome to America’s knock-down, drag-out math wars.”
- Tools used to infer gender, race and ethnicity among authors are very flawed, says a new preprint.
- “Should Nature endorse political candidates?” A look at what happened when the journal endorsed Joe Biden in 2020.
- “Scientific journals may have erred when they decided to endorse Biden for president.”
- “Octopus and ResearchEquals aim to break the publishing mould.”
- “In 2022, we assessed the submission guidelines of 33 journals that published articles included in our review and found that just one at the time encouraged the use of reporting checklists for all intervention components.”
- “Unfairness, inequity and a lack of diversity must no longer prevent the global research enterprise from maximizing scientific integrity and from realizing the ultimate societal value and benefits of research.”
- “Universities consider the NIH-prompted investigations to be a personnel matter, and thus off-limits to queries from reporters.”
- “Society and university journal publishers gradually progressing towards new OA models.”
- “JAMA’s new editor settles in, bringing open access and other changes.”
- “Plagiarism found in more of USC Dr. David Agus’ books.”
- “The rise of hyperprolific authors in computer science: characterization and implications.”
- “Artificial Intelligence Should Help Vet New Research.”
- “AI makes plagiarism harder to detect, argue academics – in paper written by chatbot.”
- “The Rapid Growth of Mega-Journals: Threats and Opportunities.”
- “After misconduct claims, star botanist has second paper retracted.”
- “‘No finding of research misconduct’: MIT ends 3.5-year review of biotech founder, professor Sasisekharan.”
- “Researchers support preprints and open access publishing, but with reservations: A questionnaire survey of MBSJ members.”
- “It’s All Too Hard to Get Plagiarizing Philosophy Publications Retracted.”
- “Greetings from your predatory journal! What they are, why they are a problem, how to spot and avoid them.”
- “Quality peer review is mandatory for scientific journals.”
- “Claire Glenton’s article was widely cited, but then she found that half were miscitations.”
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].
The shark history is funny, but it becomes hilarious when you actually see the toy: https://twitter.com/AnnieRothNews/status/1639355558598955008