Weekend reads: Why one chemist hasn’t made tenure; retractions in neuroscience; ‘pay to publish trash’

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

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• Research integrity during the COVID-19 pandemic: A book excerpt
• Guest post: A look behind the scenes of bulk retractions from Sage
• Controversial French researcher loses two papers for ethics approval issues
• Paper on homeopathy for ADHD retracted for ‘deficiencies’
• Exclusive: NYU cancer center director suspended
• Sage retracts more than 200 papers from journal for compromised peer review
• My journal was hijacked: an editor’s experience
• US VA scientist banned from agency research for faking data
• PLOS backs down from expression of concern after author’s lawsuit

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to over 375. 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):

• “Why hasn’t Kristie Koski made tenure?”
• “Neuroscientist has two papers retracted, three corrected.”
• “This presents an opportunity to consider the different motivations at play in this complex game of ‘pay to play’ or ‘pay to publish trash,’ as the Indian government calls it.”
• “It’s more that I find it vanishingly unlikely that there are two researchers who deserve to be in the line of fire while everyone else is a paragon of virtue.”
• “Former University of Cape Town leaders rebuked for misconduct.”
• “Research ethics courses must reflect academics’ diverse backgrounds.”
• “Public funds being swallowed up by scientific journals with dubious articles.”
• “U.K. funding agency suspends diversity panel following pressure from science minister.”
• “Early-career factors largely determine the future impact of prominent researchers: evidence across eight scientific fields.”
• “If you are the editor of a journal that published the article, and you think the accusation is false or wrong, you vigorously defend the merits of what you published.”
• “A snapshot of the academic research culture in 2023 and how it might be improved.”
• “Open-access reformers launch next bold publishing plan.”
• “What If Trial Participants Knew Their Contributions Were for Naught?”
• “The quality of the reviews conducted double-blind was better than of those conducted single-blind.”
• “CUNY Halts Investigation of Alzheimer’s Researcher.”
• “Why anti-vaxxers are pretending a flawed study on vaccine deaths has been vindicated.”
• Paper mills offering authorships for $500 make the news in Peru, thanks to an investigation by Punto Final.
• “Student reporter who brought down Stanford president lands book deal.”
• “Some thoughts on transparency of the data and analysis behind the Highly Cited Researchers list.”
• “Comments on Draft NIH Scientific Integrity Policy.”
• “Zombie Plagiarism in Philosophy.”
• “Reproduce or it didn’t happen: why replicable science is better science.”
• “Should scientists include their race, gender, or other personal details in papers?” More background here.

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 The Retraction Watch Database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].