Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work?
The week at Retraction Watch featured:
- Eight papers retracted after author found to be fictional
- Former Stanford president retracts 1999 Cell paper
- Weill Cornell cancer researchers committed research misconduct, feds say
- Frontiers retracts nearly 40 papers linked to ‘authorship-for-sale’
Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to well over 350. There are now well over 42,000 retractions in The Retraction Watch Database — which powers retraction alerts in Edifix, 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):
- “Scientific sleuths spot dishonest ChatGPT use in papers.”
- “Publication and collaboration anomalies in academic papers originating from a paper mill: Evidence from a Russia-based paper mill.”
- “Princeton Gerrymandering Project did not manipulate data, says NJ commission.”
- “Colombia considers ban on most research and education using live animals.”
- “My Ph.D. research got scooped. It ended up being an unexpected opportunity.”
- “AI writing tools will not fix academia’s language discrimination problem.”
- “Leru seeks cultural change to stop bad authorship practices.”
- Japan’s National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center announces they’ll invstigate the work of two researchers.
- “Reproducibility in neuroscience.”
- “Group behind ProMED fires three top moderators amid strike.”
- “What’s Up With These Alzheimer’s Researchers?”
- A publisher removes a chapter on sexual misconduct in academia after a legal threat.
- “Bullying is a feature of UK research universities, not a bug.”
- “Fifth of UK research staff ‘bullied in past two years.’”
- “Concern at Cochrane: evidence giant battles funding cuts and closures.”
- An institutions pays back a small portion of a U.S. NSF grants.
- An author “was rightly punished…for plagiarizing the dissertation:” Court.
- “The team behind the fall of Didier Raoult.”
- “Overall female researchers appear to contribute more to the public good of open science, while their male colleagues focus on private reputation.”
- “Is scientific fraud getting worse in chemistry papers?” And “Flawed chemistry papers can take more than a year to be retracted.”
- Peer reviewers should be more like mentors than gatekeepers, say two authors.
- Springer Nature removes “Mozart” from a press release.
- “Painter ordered to pay damages for plagiarism.”
- “The Big Purge: Another University Professor Sacked in Iran.”
- “Putin Daughter’s Publications in US Science Journal Draw Backlash.”
- “Rather than jumping to technological fixes, there needs to be a conversation across physics about what different fields want from peer review, and what the best way is to achieve it.”
- “The write algorithm: promoting responsible artificial intelligence usage and accountability in academic writing.”
- “In summary, the rate of inappropriate image duplication in this journal has been quantified at 16%…”
- “Fabrication and errors in the bibliographic citations generated by ChatGPT.” If that sounds familiar, read this.
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].