Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work?
The week at Retraction Watch featured:
- “Unapproved euthanasia” of rats in neuroscience study leads to retraction
- High-profile paper that used AI to identify suicide risk from brain scans retracted for flawed methods
- Wiley and Hindawi to retract 1,200 more papers for compromised peer review
- Five years after saying it won’t retract Macchiarini paper, journal does so
- A high-quality cloned journal has duped hundreds of scholars, and has no reason to stop
- ‘Sad but necessary’: Ant researchers pull fossil paper over errant claim
Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to more than 300.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 drug company that unsuccessfully sued a journal for libel has lost an appeal. Court decision here, background here.
- “Canada is essentially a wasteland for whistleblower protection.”
- Four years after a lower court ruled that the University of Texas at Austin could not revoke a PhD, the Texas Supreme Court has overturned the decision.
- “Genentech review of Tessier-Lavigne paper finds no evidence of fraud — but hints at a different misconduct case.”
- “[S]tanford’s president—and science—under an uncomfortable spotlight.”
- “Chemists debate whether journals should demand results from elemental analysis, the age-old technique for confirming a product’s purity.”
- “Is there a Vietnamese scientist who claims to be the ‘editor-in-chief of international journals‘?”
- “Debriefing works: Successful retraction of misinformation following a fake news study.”
- “Is Science Self-Correcting? Evidence from 5 Recent Papers on the Effect of Replications on Citations.”
- “Harness editors’ networks of communication to fight publication fraud.”
- “Addressing the Problematic Past of Animal Behavior Research.”
- Medical journals are “in need of ‘communication-and-resolution’ rehabilitation.”
- “How (not) to be held accountable in research: A reply to my critics.”
- “Double-blind peer review affects reviewer ratings and editor decisions at an ecology journal.”
- How did a questionable vaccine study pass peer review?
- “Can We Trust Peer Review Journals?”
- A journal will do a 12-month pilot of an approach other journals have already taken: Publishing peer reviews.
- “Recommendations and guidelines for creating scholarly biomedical journals: A scoping review.”
- Lots of hand-wringing about ChatGPT making up references. But we didn’t need AI for that.
- “Encouraging responsible reporting practices in the Instructions to Authors of neuroscience and physiology journals: There is room to improve.”
- “Why are coauthored academic articles more cited: Higher quality or larger audience?”
- “Retraction has many uses, and not all of them are reparative.” “The Ethics of Retraction.”
- “How to write a research paper.”
- “Academic Publishers Are Missing the Point on ChatGPT.”
- “Standing on the shoulders of Chinese…Giants – Evidence for a citation discount for Chinese Researchers.”
- Retractions Are On The Rise, But Not Enough: Join our Ivan Oransky for an American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists webinar on April 18.
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].