Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work?
The week at Retraction Watch featured:
- Australian study supporting mask mandates earns expression of concern
- Leading primate researcher demoted after admitting he faked data
- Hindawi shuttering four journals overrun by paper mills
- Chemist in India loses seven papers, blames outsourcing of images
- Nature editors retract influential cancer paper with “unreliable” data
Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to more than 300.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. The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker now contains 200 titles. 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):
- “Women’s underrepresentation is particularly marked for retractions due to fraud and misconduct.” Just check our leaderboard.
- “How to improve scientific peer review: Four schools of thought.”
- “Several of the results” in a homeopathy paper “can only be explained by data manipulation or falsification.”
- Some designated research integrity “advisors only discovered they were an advisor” after the authors of a study contacted them.
- “Why do some academics so often publish (letters) outside their field?”
- A study of ivermectin, COVID-19, and the microbiome has been retracted. Earlier.
- “Abstracts matter more than you think – and writing a good one is hard.”
- “Researchers who agree to manipulate citations are more likely to get their papers published.”
- “Women researchers received substantially less funding in grant awards than men—an average of about $342,000 compared to men’s $659,000,” says a new study.
- “Black and women researchers are less likely to hold three or more NIH grants simultaneously.”
- “This outrageous tale of a plagiarism check gone wrong got people sharing similar tales and it’s a proper shocker.”
- “However, a surprisingly large number of papers continue to be cited after they have been retracted.”
- “Shaken babies: an article retracted for ethical flaw.”
- “Assessing the agreement in retraction indexing across 4 multidisciplinary sources: Crossref, Retraction Watch, Scopus, and Web of Science.”
- How librarians can help identify potentially predatory journal emails.
- “Racial inequalities in journals highlighted in giant study.”
- “Despite what you may have heard or read, the perception around retractions has changed and it is progressing in a positive direction.”
- “Plagiarism and China’s Social Credit System.” An art professor’s story.
- A Nobelist’s 6th retraction. Earlier.
- “One of the worst ever tobacco control papers is ‘corrected.'”
- Stanford investigation “will be ‘substantially complete’ by mid-July.”
- “Upheaval at Philosophy Journal Points to Publishing’s Conflicting Interests.”
- “Watchdog group calls for federal investigation of [University of Wyoming] regarding research misconduct.”
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].
Did Pinho-Gomes not use per-capita values?
She didn’t normalize the data, ostensibly to make the difference seem larger to the casual abstract reader. The larger issue is that she used an algorithm to assume gender, which discarded a not-insignificant (nearly 50%) portion of retracted articles. If that was accounted for in her article, the error bars would be enormous.