Weekend reads: The strain on publishing; Gino defends herself; the rise of fake peer review retractions

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

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to well over 350. There are more than 43,000 retractions in The Retraction Watch Database — which is now part of Crossref. The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker now contains well over 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? Or The Retraction Watch Mass Resignations List?

Here’s what was happening elsewhere (some of these items may be paywalled, metered access, or require free registration to read):

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 team@retractionwatch.com.

3 thoughts on “Weekend reads: The strain on publishing; Gino defends herself; the rise of fake peer review retractions”

  1. Regarding the article “Plagiarizing professor stays in post…”. According to the linked article, the professor copied 12 journal pages worth of text from the two of the student’s essays almost word for word. Cambridge University declared this “the product of negligent acts but not deliberate”. Such hypocrisy!

  2. Um, citing ‘Unherd’? Seriously?
    I can’t think of a less credible publication. Naturally, they attack the Lancet study that revealed a (very conservative) estimate for how many Iraqis were slaughtered by the bestial invaders who wanted to destroy Saddam Hussein because he supported the Palestinian people.

  3. Not “citing” it as an authority, but linking to it as a publication relevant to the interests of readers of this blog. The only statement that the article makes about the Lancet’s two studies of deaths in Iraq is “There were also accusations that the journal vastly overestimated the number of deaths caused by the war in Iraq” which is factually entirely accurate — there were such accusations.
    The tenor of the Unherd article is that the present-day Lancet is continuing its founding position of taking an explicitly political stance on controversial issues, and that seems quite correct too.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.