Weekend reads: A researcher explains how he publishes every three days; scientific bounty hunters; criminalizing scientific misconduct

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

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 400.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

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, subscribe to our free daily digest or paid weekly updatefollow 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].

9 thoughts on “Weekend reads: A researcher explains how he publishes every three days; scientific bounty hunters; criminalizing scientific misconduct”

  1. The h-index calculation needs to be changed. It should be reduced by some amount for every paper that is corrected and by a much larger amount for every retraction. I’ll start: subtract 5 points for each correction, 20 points for every retraction. The h-index is allowed to be negative.

    1. Interesting … But should retractions for misconduct be penalized the same number of points as retractions for inadvertent or other types of errors? Also, corrections range from minor and inconsequential to major mega-corrections or those that are issued to cover for suspected misconduct (e.g., copying others’ work without citation, then adding a ‘correction’ by mentioning the ‘inadvertent’ lapse). Anyway, having a meaningful scoring system could get complicated.

      1. I considered that and agree that trying to sort out the various flavors of corrections is unworkable. So, perhaps a -1 for each correction, regardless of type, might be better. Such a correction to an author’s h-index is not going to make or break anyone, but might be enough to cause authors, especially corresponding authors, to be more diligent in their papers. The -1s will begin to pile up for those with problematic track records.

        I stand by the -20 for retractions, regardless of reason.

        Something similar should also be considered for journal Impact Factors.

    2. So if the journal inadvertently publishes your paper twice and then retracts the duplicate, or someone slaps your name on a paper that you had nothing to do with and that is then retracted for the fake authorship, you should take a hit to your h-index? Neat.

  2. Is it just me, or did the linked story “Vietnamese scientist in the top ‘world’s most influential’ explains why he publishes an article every 3 days.” not explain, in any meaningful way, “why he publishes an article every 3 days”? Seemed like a fluff piece.

    Also, this is a good time to remind all readers that the tuoitre.vn story promulgates questionable information, as is no such thing as “”top most influential scientists in the world” rankings of Professor John PA Ioannidis and colleagues at Stanford University.” There is just a scientometrics dataset published by Ioannidis on a data-sharing repository for use in research. Of course, we cannot let facts stand in the way of academic gamesmanship (in the sense of van den Berghe).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.