Weekend reads: A Nobel winner’s seventh retraction; Stanford’s president fights back; what should go into a retraction notice

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

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• Three journals’ web domains expired. Then major indexes pointed to hijacked versions
• After backlash, publisher to retract article that surveyed parents of children with gender dysphoria, says co-author
• ‘Stop playing with my life,’ researcher about to be up to 10 retractions asks sleuth
• Dutch university can revoke PhD for fake data, court rules

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to more than 300.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 seventh retraction for Nobel Prize winner Gregg Semenza. Earlier, when he was up to five.
• “Fighting Claims of Research Misconduct, Stanford’s President Isn’t Pulling Punches.”
• “But if I’m sitting from the outside and watching this, I would quite frankly be quite scared.”
• “What to communicate in retraction notices?”
• “Nerve regeneration paper retracted over faked data.”
• “NIH toughens enforcement of delayed clinical trials reporting.”
• “Ghosted in science: how to move on when a potential collaborator suddenly stops responding.”
• “Beware ‘persuasive communication devices’ when writing and reading scientific articles.”
• “Using AI in peer review.”
• “[I]t is important that all participants within the peer-review process remain vigilant about the use of LLMs.”
• “Is AI just another way to impress journal editors, peer reviewers, study section members?”
• “Traces of image doctoring in papers by university professor in Japan trigger probe.”
• “In the wake of the replication crisis, countries are acting against widespread method deficiencies.”
• A neuroscience journal retracts 13 papers at once. But the screening method used faces questions.
• “The number of retracted research articles on covid-19 is now well over 300.”
• “Fully Open Access Journals – Size Does Matter.”
• “Four stories that illustrate why whistleblowers need more protection.”
• “Which factors are associated with fraud in medical imaging research?”
• “Miami prosecutors lose medical fraud case alleging ring ran ‘fake’ clinical drug trials.”
• “How Bibliometrics & School Rankings Reward Unreliable Science and What Can Be Done About It.” Our Ivan Oransky will speak at Stanford.

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].