Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work?
The week at Retraction Watch featured:
- Former cancer research center director plagiarized and faked data, feds say
- US-backed researchers in Colombia accused of experimenting on animals, humans without approval
- ‘Frankly abusive’: More questions about the journal that stole an author’s identity
- Torturing data to predict bitcoin prices: A book excerpt
- A response to a public records request that raised more questions than it answered
Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to more than 300. There are nearly 40,000 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):
- “Research Finds No Gender Bias in Academic Science.” About a new study.
- Wiley fires a philosophy journal editor.
- “Unsuspecting unis caught up in foreign research ‘fraud.’”
- “Chinese Censorship Is Quietly Rewriting the Covid-19 Story.”
- “The Geography of Retracted Papers.”
- “ChatGPT writes believable scientific abstracts, though with completely generated data.”
- “Reviewer comment on NSF fellowship application sparks outrage on Twitter.”
- “The Double-Cost of Green-via-Gold.”
- “Scientific rivalries can benefit us all.”
- “EU governments to rein in unfair academic publishers and unsustainable fees.”
- “Peer review bias and double-blind reviewing: a new study.” Here’s the study.
- “Unsuspecting unis caught up in foreign research ‘fraud.’”
- “The ‘invented persona’ behind a key pandemic database.”
- “More on Self-Correcting Science and Replications: A Critical Review.”
- “Median self-referencing rates are between 8-13% across a range of journals” in the biological sciences.
- “Sanctioning of 50 journals raises concerns over special issues in ‘mega-journals.’” Note the quote at the end.
- “NIH rules are supposed to stop ‘pass the harasser.’ In one recent case, they appear to have failed.”
- “How Do Scientists Perceive the Relationship Between Ethics and Science?”
- “Stanford president dodges research misconduct questions.”
- “The global cost of peer-review was estimated at US$6 billion in 2020…”
- A comparison of retractions in Nigeria and South Africa.
- “Journal retracts autism paper after spotting ‘tortured phrases.’”
- “Retracted publications in autism research are mostly concerned with ethical misconduct.”
- “Scrutiny for thee but not for me: When open science research isn’t open.”
- Our Ivan Oransky is keynoting this year’s UKRIO conference, which is virtual. Register here.
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].