Weekend reads: ‘Egregious misconduct’ by biotech collaborator; an IVF doctor with allegedly fake credentials; ChatGPT not the problem in publishing

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

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• How thousands of invisible citations sneak into papers and make for fake metrics
• Study of music by Mozart includes tunes “not necessarily music composed by Mozart”
• Our two-year fight for the release of public records
• Exclusive: Author threatened to sue publisher over retraction, then sued to block release of emails

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to well over 350.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):

• “Co-developer of Cassava’s potential Alzheimer’s drug cited for ‘egregious misconduct.’” The company’s stock plummeted Friday.
• Sleuths find a doctor who allegedly faked her credentials by combing the scientific literature.
• “For all the challenges raised, ChatGPT is simply holding a mirror to issues already plaguing the current scholarly publishing system.”
• “The Nanyang Technological University (NTU) academic at the centre of a plagiarism scandal in July is no longer employed by the university.”
• “PhD by publication ‘not an option’ at most UK universities.”
• “The Peer Review Renaissance: An Urgent Call for Transformation.”
• “Some Insights into the Factors Influencing Continuous Citation of Retracted Scientific Papers.”
• “Predatory vs hijacked journals.”
• “Analysis of Retracted Publications in Medical Literature Due to Ethical Violations.”
• “Reproducibility trial: 246 biologists get different results from same data sets.”
• “Virginia crime lab director digging into allegations uncovered by podcast.”
• A university cancels a degree for plagiarism.
• “Women Are Underrepresented Among Authors of Retracted Publications.”
• “The American Chemical Society Offers a New Twist on the Article Processing Charge.”
• “What is the rate of text generated by artificial intelligence over a year of publication in Orthopedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research?”
• “Fake paper identification in the pool of withdrawn and rejected manuscripts submitted to” a single journal.
• “If you’re trying to get into Nature, ‘humility is punished, or strongly discouraged.'” On celebrity in science.
• “Perceived impact of a one-week journalology training course on scientific reporting competencies: prospective survey.”
• A hospital’s review of a disgraced doctor’s work disappoints the scientific community.
• “Crystallography Databases Hunt for Fraudulent Structures.” One database learned of a preprint about the issues from our newsletter.
• “Wiley CEO Brian Napack Exits, Company Cancels Investor Day.” Earlier coverage.
• “Why single-submission policies need to die (and what to do in the meantime).” Perhaps scientific journals could learn from law journals.
• “6200 [medical] residents were enrolled in the study, and 53.7% admitted to have committed at least one form of research misconduct.”
• “Report claiming net zero will cost UK trillions retracted due to ‘factual errors.’”
• “How ChatGPT and other AI tools could disrupt scientific publishing: A world of AI-assisted writing and reviewing might transform the nature of the scientific paper.”
• “Need to tighten integrity in scientific articles.” On paper mills.
• “De-pressurising the system for researchers.”
• “Harvard Defends Its Investigation
  Into Francesca Gino’s Alleged Research Misconduct.”
• “Science whistleblowers need better support – and I should know.”
• “How to stay afloat in the flood of scientific literature.”

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].