Weekend reads: Study claiming masks harm is retracted; papers lead to high treason charges; paying to publish in fake journals

Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• ‘Compromised’ survey data leads to article retraction and university investigation
• Guest post: When whistleblowers need lawyers
• Researcher loses PhD after admitting to fudging images
• Texas dept. chair no longer in position amid university investigation and retraction
• Exclusive: Top-tier university in Japan investigating prof’s alleged misconduct

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to more than 300. There are now 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):

• A study that claimed masks harm is retracted. A thread on its problems.
• “The cases showed that ‘any article or report can lead to accusations of high treason, the open letter said.”
• Scientists who commit misconduct in India can be fired even if their work is “sensitive”: Court.
• “Indian PhDs, professors are paying to publish in real-sounding, fake journals. It’s a racket.”
• “The Newest College Admissions Ploy: Paying to Make Your Teen a ‘Peer-Reviewed’ Author.”
• “Evidence of questionable research practices in clinical prediction models.”
• “Following Colleague’s Comments on Racism, ‘JAMA’ Editor’s Resignation Came With $500,000 Payout.”
• “The peer-review process is in need of some scrutiny.”
• “Research assessment exercises are necessary — but we need to learn to do them better.”
• “Fostering A Culture Of Trust: Insights On Academic Integrity And Research Ethics – Analysis.”
• “Uber-Prolific Publishing, Hanging, Standing, Punching.”
• “Fighting reviewer fatigue or amplifying bias? Considerations and recommendations for use of ChatGPT and other large language models in scholarly peer review.”
• “Integrity of randomized clinical trials: Performance of integrity tests and checklists requires assessment.”
• “Faculty Diverges on Researcher’s Alleged Misconduct.” More on the Danielle Dixson case.
• “NIH blocks projects of two researchers who fail to make clinical trial results public.”
• Norway’s most-published researcher has a dozen papers retracted.
• “Is it the beginning of the end for scientific publishing?”
• “[D]isgraced sexual harasser removed from astronomy manuscript.”
• “Replication of high-temperature superconductor comes up empty.”
• “Impact of war on editors of science journals from Ukraine: Results of a survey.”
• “Stem cell study in science journal Nature didn’t have ethical approval,” say China officials.
• What does “quiet quitting” look like in scientific publishing?
• “Cross-cultural differences in retracted publications of male and female from a global perspective.”
• “Research on retracted papers involving ethical issues in science and technology.”
• “Combat paper mills with slow science, not warring AIs,” says John Whitfield.

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].