Weekend reads: Another vaccine-autism retraction; ‘Why We Commit Academic Fraud’; on a psilocybin-depression correction

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

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• University of Sydney dean working to amend review papers that cited papermill articles
• University vice president for research contests retraction for image issues
• Caught by a reviewer: A plagiarizing deep learning paper lingers
• Pharmaceutical researcher faked data in two papers, says federal watchdog
• Indonesian university dean dismissed, barred from teaching, asked to apologize
• Neuroscience journal retracts eight articles for image distortion

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 400. There are nearly 49,000 retractions in The Retraction Watch Database — which is now part of Crossref. The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker now contains more than 250 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? What about The Retraction Watch Mass Resignations List — or our list of nearly 100 papers with evidence they were written by ChatGPT?

Here’s what was happening elsewhere (some of these items may be paywalled, metered access, or require free registration to read):

• A “blogger retracts critique of study that debunked vaccination-autism link.”
• “Why We Commit Academic Fraud.”
• “This correction included correcting the title of the paper itself.” Of a paper about psilocybin and depression.
• “Emeritus professors ‘excluded’ from UK open access deal.”
• “Paper mills pose threat to scientific scholarship.”
• “Internal messages reveal that the new rector of Salamanca organized a citation cartel for himself.”
• “The falsified metrics of the Salamancan professor Juan Manuel Corchado respond to the values ​​of the Spanish academic system.”
• “Promoting responsible scientific research: Integrating retractions into the ORCID profile.”
• “By successfully reproducing their analyses, we demonstrated the value of and ability to conduct research in a manner that is open, transparent, and accountable, allowing other researchers to independently verify, and build on the findings.”
• “Editors are acutely aware of how much the quality of peer-review matters. For Registered Reports, it can critically shape the outcome of the project.”
• “With a click of a button, could you change your mind about ‘good’ science?” A study takes a look.
• “The [Bangladesh] Supreme Court today upheld a High Court verdict that declared the decision of Dhaka University authorities to demote faculty member Samia Rahman on charges of plagiarism ‘illegal‘.”
• “Former Claremont McKenna Dean Investigated for Racism After Accusing Student of Plagiarism.”
• “‘Publication pressure’ evident albeit not overwhelming in medical imaging.”
• “Why are computational chemists making up their data?”
• “EPA accused of ‘egregious’ misconduct in PFAS testing of pesticides.”
• “Humans plus AI detectors can catch AI-generated academic writing.”
• “The Impact of Preprints on COVID-19 Research Dissemination: A Quantitative Analysis of Journal Publications.”
• Editors at philosophy and public affairs journal resign en masse. The sixth such move this year, by our count.
• “Research into the chemical found in ecstasy is plagued with allegations of misconduct.”
• “A substantial proportion of respondents (57% of respondents) report using journal reputation and JIF to assess credibility.”
• “Are lab safety violations research misconduct?”
• “‘Hidden’ citations conceal the true impact of scientific research.”
• Plagiarism: The “Culture War’s New Frontier.”
• “Central and eastern Europe bites back at predatory publishers.”
• Mass retraction “highlights an ongoing crisis in scientific research.”
• Will retractions “erode confidence in cancer research?”
• “Peer review system branded ‘unsustainable.'”
• “3 Ways to Fix Peer Review.”
• “On the Thorny Issue of Single-Submission.'”
• “Guidelines for academics aim to lessen ethical pitfalls in generative-AI use.”
• “Fake Scientific Studies Are a Problem That’s Getting Harder to Solve.”
• “The STM Integrity Hub — Connecting the Dots in a Dynamic Landscape.”
• “How academic publishers profit from the publish-or-perish culture.”

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].