Weekend reads: ‘An epidemic of scientific fakery’; death threats for critics; Cleveland Clinic settles mismanagement allegations for $7.6 million

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

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• Two papers retracted for plagiarizing a 50-year-old thesis
• Editor and authors refuse to share data of paper containing alleged statistical errors
• How a widely used ranking system ended up with three fake journals in its top 10 philosophy list
• Brain tumor researchers lose second paper as UCSF investigates
• ‘Perplexed’ author’s identity forged on plagiarized paper in ‘probably fake’ journal
• Expression of concern coming for paper some used to link COVID-19 vaccines to deaths

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 400. There are more than 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):

• “An epidemic of scientific fakery threatens to overwhelm publishers.”
• “The Impersonator: The Fake Data Were Coming From Inside the Lab.” A post whose 2019 publication was put on hold by a death threat.
• “Cleveland Clinic fined $7.6 million for alleged mismanagement of NIH grants.”
• “The ethics committee asks the University of Salamanca to act in response to ‘the alleged seriousness’ of the practices of its rector.” With a reference to our coverage.
• “Top Canadian scientist alleges in leaked emails he was barred from studying mystery brain illness.”
• “The Impact of AI on Academic Research and Publishing.”
• “A Rapid Investigation of Artificial Intelligence Generated Content Footprints in Scholarly Publications.”
• “Guidance needed for using artificial intelligence to screen journal submissions for misconduct.”
• “Publication has always been the most crucial factor in science. However, the pressure to publish as much as humanly possible has increased drastically.”
• “The advent of human-assisted peer review by AI.”
• “We explore a paradox of collective action and certainty in science wherein the more scientists research together, the less that work contributes to the value of their collective certainty.”
• “An open dataset of article processing charges from six large scholarly publishers (2019-2023).”
• “Nanoscientist who was convicted of making false statements about his interactions with Wuhan University will discuss a potential faculty appointment.”
• “Is a world-famous misinformation expert spreading misinformation?”
• “Bounty hunting for blunders: Q&A with Russell Poldrack and Jan Wessel.”
• “Columbia Law Review refused to take down article on Palestine, so its board of directors nuked the whole website.”
• “Star botanist likely made up data about nutritional supplements, new probe finds.”
• An appeals court has revived Carlo Croce’s lawsuit against his employer, The Ohio State University. It’s a rare win for him.
• “The inside story of how Lykos’ MDMA research went awry.” 
• “A scientific controversy at the Supreme Court.” (Check out our earlier coverage.)
• “Fired chief of Irish science funder in legal battle to keep his job.”
• “The prevalence of retractions in the clinical orthopaedic literature is increasing.”
• “Strip Clubs vs. Academic Fraud. Which is worse?”
• Nearly a year after an editor said an obesity study would be retracted, the publisher has finally done so.
• “Large Language Models Reflect Human Citation Patterns with a Heightened Citation Bias.”
• “A Biologist, a Blog, and a Mosquito Control Dispute.” The name may be familiar to RW readers.
• “Implementing statcheck during peer review is related to a steep decline in statistical reporting inconsistencies.”
• “I had no choice but to commit [research] misconduct.” Confessions of researchers in China.
• “Open access is working — but researchers in lower-income countries enjoy fewer benefits.”
• “Factors influencing researchers’ scientific integrity in scholarly publishing.”
• “House Republicans fault NIH for evasive answers” on monkeypox study.
• “Scientist and activist for integrity in science and medicine” Ned Feder has died.

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].