Weekend reads: More ‘duplicative language’ in Harvard president’s work; Peru cracks down on misconduct; prison for Macchiarini

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

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• Psychology professor earns retractions after publishing with ‘repeat offenders’
• Former Stanford president retracts Nature paper as another gets expression of concern
• Hindawi reveals process for retracting more than 8,000 paper mill articles
• Guest post: Why I commented on the proposed changes to U.S. federal research-misconduct policies – and why you should, too
• What analyzing 30 years of US federal research misconduct sanctions revealed
• Exclusive: Researcher outs Indian university’s publishing scam after it fails to pay him
• Journals going rogue, authors beware

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to over 375. There are more than 45,000 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):

• “Harvard Finds More Instances of ‘Duplicative Language’ in President’s Work.”
• “Peru moves to crack down on scientific fraudsters.”
• “Disgraced surgeon Paolo Macchiarini, whose crimes inspired an opera, headed to prison.”
• “Sage Policy Profiles scans a database of 10 million documents to show researchers where their papers have been cited.”
• “Across the 82 natural-science journals tracked by the index, just 2.7% of articles published between 2015 and 2022 featured collaborations between scientists in higher-income and lower-income countries.”
• “Can ChatGPT and Other AI Bots Serve as Peer Reviewers?”
• “Scientific integrity faces plagiarism fabricated with the ChatGPT.”
• “When a postdoc in my lab committed fraud, I had to face my own culpability.”
• “Mistaking a duck for a skvader: How a conceptual form of circular analysis may taint many neuroscience studies.”
• A star neuroscientist earns an expression of concern following reporting in Science on questions about research.
• A group of researchers at the Karolinska Insitutet is found guilty of misconduct.
• “Scrutinized autism prediction paper retracted over problems in peer review.”
• “How a bullying scandal closed a historic astronomy department.”
• “Superconductivity debunker: this physicist exposed flaws in a blockbuster claim.”
• Our Ivan Oransky explains the new retraction record.
• “Suspicions of scientific misconduct for a couple of researchers” as CNRS and the University of Lille investigate.
• “Professors retract seminal finance paper after detective work uncovers flaws.”
• How often do top-ranking psychology journals publish replications?
• “Some researchers find AI chatbots helpful for writing, coding and gathering information. Others are choosing to avoid the craze.”
• “Scientific research integrity: It’s time for regulators to step in.” A dispatch from Vietnam.
• “After Dallas reporter’s sudden exit” — and a retraction — “colleagues allege ‘culture of fear.’”

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, subscribe to our free daily digest or paid weekly update, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, or add us to your RSS reader. 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].