Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work?
The week at Retraction Watch featured:
- ‘Prompt and decisive’: Editor says obesity study will be retracted after critique
- Exclusive: Professor in France blames alleged ghostwriter for plagiarism
- Article defending private-equity involvement in autism services retracted
- Alcohol researcher faked data in animal studies, US watchdog says
- Professor who blamed plagiarism on ghostwriter to earn first retraction
Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to well over 350.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):
- “Nobel laureate’s study earns expression of concern over data integrity issues.”
- “India’s fake universities proliferate as demand outstrips supply.”
- “How the reform-minded new editor of psychology’s flagship journal will shake things up.”
- “Importance of considering historical contexts when selecting terminology for questionable journal list names.”
- “Seven Tenured HBS Faculty Speak Out” to defend Francesca Gino anonymously.
- “Scientists prefer feedback from ChatGPT to judgement by peers.”
- “AI tidies up Wikipedia’s references — and boosts reliability.”
- Michael Eisen, the editor in chief of eLife, faced criticism after a tweet about Israel and Hamas, and has since deleted his Twitter account. eLife responded on Twitter.
- “Readers must check regularly with the publishers of articles they have read to learn whether an article has been retracted. A faster and easier way is to subscribe to the Retraction Watch database.”
- “Startup Laronde merges with another biotech after data integrity issue.”
- “Citations used by China to ‘seize control of global science.'”
- Iwate Medical University found that a professor had falsified data and recommended that the researcher retract a paper.
- “Superconductivity ‘damaged’ as researchers look to move on from retractions.”
- At Leiden University, “Pressure to retract fraudulent publications has increased.”
- Science corrects two 2022 papers about the origins of COVID-19, one by Worobey et al and the other by Pekar et al.
- “How Do We Clean Up the Scientific Record?”
- “Constructive correction.”
- “Detecting generative artificial intelligence in scientific articles.”
- “Editors’ Statement on the Responsible Use of Generative AI Technologies in Scholarly Journal Publishing.”
- “Why Are So Many Studies Being Retracted?”
- The American Chemical Society’s “new zero embargo policy perpetuates an increasingly out-of-touch and outdated position.”
- “Archaeology society spars over publishing photos of Indigenous burial offerings.”
- “Are most published research findings false? Trends in statistical power, publication selection bias, and the false discovery rate in psychology (1975–2017).”
- “European Court demands answers from Sweden about the treatment of the whistleblowers in the Macchiarini affair.”
- Help shape guidelines for the communication of retractions, removals, and expressions of concern by commenting on a NISO draft.
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].