Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work?
The week at Retraction Watch featured:
- Exclusive: Alleged research misconduct cost Turkish surgeons tenure
- Scientist with six retractions wins challenge of firing, funding ban
- In the Death of an Iranian Scientist, Hints of Unchecked Strife
Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to more than 300.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):
- How Bibliometrics & School Rankings Reward Unreliable Science: Our Ivan Oransky’s talk at Stanford.
- “Reporting research misconduct: When, how, and to whom.” A UKRIO report.
- Retraction Watch reporting “significantly reduced post-retraction citations of non-swiftly retracted articles in biomedical sciences,” says a new study.
- “Our analysis shows large heterogeneity across scientific disciplines in the amelioration of gender imbalances with more prominent imbalances persisting among top-cited authors and slow promotion pathways even for the most-cited young scientists.”
- “How to assess whether IRBs are doing a good job—and first defining what that means—has bedeviled human research protection officials for years.”
- “Systematic review finds “spin” practices and poor reporting standards in studies on machine learning-based prediction models.”
- “Her implication is that rejecting a paper equates to rejecting its premise. This is not the case.” Readers respond to a New York Times op-ed.
- “His lawsuit settled, one of the two feuding Temple heart scientists is retiring.”
- “Authors from richer, English-speaking countries gain unconscious boost when identified to referees, study finds.”
- “Published registered reports are rare, limited to one journal group, and inadequate for randomized controlled trials in the clinical field.”
- How did nearly 250 different clnical studies use the same ethics committee approval?
- A look at “HIV-Related Stigmatizing Language in the Scientific Literature, From 2010-2020,” along with recommendations.
- “Worries mount about misinformation in science.”
- “Use of positive terms and certainty language in retracted and non-retracted articles: The case of biochemistry.”
- “She Said Her Professor Sexually Harassed Her. His Wife Won Damages.”
- “Distortion of journal impact factors in the era of paper mills.”
- “Expired scientific journal domain names can be a goldmine.” Hijacked journals in the Dutch media.
- “AI intensifies fight against ‘paper mills’ that churn out fake research. Text- and image-generating tools present a new hurdle…”
- “Ethics and academic integrity in doctoral training: the case of doctorates in education in Chilean universities.”
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].