Weekend reads: More Alzheimer’s misconduct?; AI bullshit; manipulating rankings

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

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• Publisher pulls books about philosophers Žižek and Venn over citation issues
• Archaeologists claimed old findings as their own, critic says
• Authors hire lawyer as journal plans to retract their article on pesticide poisoning
• Auburn PhD student faked data in grant application and published paper, feds say
• What’s in a name? Made-up authors are penning dozens of papers

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to over 375. There are more than 44,000 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):

• A “star neuroscientist…may have manipulated data that support a major stroke trial and important Alzheimer’s research.”
• “AI is a Terrifying Purveyor of Bullshit. Next Up: Fake Science.”
• “New tool detects AI-generated chemistry papers.”
• “AI writes summaries of preprints in bioRxiv trial.” And: “Who Published It?”
• “Transparency in research: An analysis of ChatGPT usage acknowledgment by authors across disciplines and geographies.”
• “Science journals overturn ban on ChatGPT-authored papers.”
• “Spanish national research council investigates five scientists for manipulating university rankings.
• “To supercharge science, first experiment with how it is funded.”
• “Unis, scientists unite for first time on need for research misconduct body.” Earlier, our cofounders weighed in on what an Australian body might look like.
• “Australian bill criminalises unauthorised research collaborations.”
• “China increases share of most cited researchers.”
• “Retracted articles use less free and open-source software and cite it worse,” according to a new paper in Quantitative Science Studies.
• “Preregistering, transparency, and large samples boost psychology studies’ replication rate to nearly 90%.”
• “UK Research Integrity Office picks next chief executive.”
• “Despite sexual harassment shadow, biologist David Sabatini lands job at top Czech institute.”
• “Who should pay for open-access publishing? APC alternatives emerge.”
• The Einstein Foundation presents €500,000 in awards for promoting quality in research.
• “University says it found no misconduct in anti-inflammatory research. Critics are unconvinced.”
• “When Does Science Self-Correct? Lessons from a Replication Crisis in Early 20th Century Chemistry.”
• “This reveals hype in science communication as a calculated, persuasive tactic by academic stakeholders, aligning with a neoliberal view of science.”
• “Characteristics of Retracted Publications From Kazakhstan.”
• “Americans’ Trust in Scientists, Positive Views of Science Continue to Decline.”
• A retraction earns a correction.

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].