Weekend reads: Top NIH neuroscientist out amid suspicion; the issue with special issues; an ingredient derailed experiments

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

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• 1 in 7 scientific papers is fake, suggests study that author calls ‘wildly nonsystematic’
• Publisher adds temporary online notifications to articles “under investigation”
• Homeopathy for cancer paper extensively corrected after watchdog agency requested retraction

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 400. There are more than 50,000 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 top neuroscientist and NIH official is out as his papers “fall under suspicion.” The case has been referred to the ORI.
• “The issue with special issues.” A letter to the editor from three Retraction Watch team members.
• “A Simple Lab Ingredient Derailed Science Experiments.”
• “Of the 2985 articles with bar graphs, 29% contain at least one visualization mistake.”
• “Is AI the Answer to Peer Review Problems, or the Problem Itself?”
• “Some Thoughts on the Promise and Pitfalls of Innovation and Technology in Peer Review.”
• “Science thrives on constructive and respectful peer review.”
• “‘Does it feel like a scientific paper?’: A qualitative analysis of preprint servers’ moderation and quality assurance processes.”
• “Tenth International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication: Call for Abstracts.”
• “This Study Was Hailed as a Win for Science Reform. Now It’s Being Retracted.” And the authors’ response. 
• “What’s the story behind that paper by the Center for Open Science team that just got retracted?” Andrew Gelman’s take.
• “The UK’s Royal Society has published peer review reports dating back up to 75 years, featuring comments on the work of eminent scientists such as mathematician Alan Turing.”
• “Randomisation can resolve the uncertainty at the heart of peer review.”
• “Publishers must not feed the machine munching through the academy.”
• “Research misconduct claims are growing. Will new rules help universities investigate?”
• “New HHS rules can’t address the primary reason for research misconduct,” argues a medical writer.
• “How bad publishing incentives hinder long-term thinking in computational biology research.”
• “When crayfish make news, headlines are correct but still misleading,” researchers say.
• Report “confirms ‘systematic manipulation’” of university rector’s resume” after scoop about retractions. Our earlier (2022) story on the case.
• Professor who used different academic affiliations to boost his resume has resigned from his council position. His colleague defended the practice. 
• Scientists write open letter to Indian Council of Medical Research “over prosecution of researchers” studying COVID vaccine.
• “Can AI be used to assess research quality?”
• “The ‘publish or perish’ mentality is fuelling research paper retractions – and undermining science.”
• Researchers ask: “Do AI models produce more original ideas than researchers?” 
• “‘Substandard and unworthy’: why it’s time to banish bad-mannered reviews.”
• “Preprint servers and journals: Rivals or allies?”
• Motivational speaker Tony Robbins “reeling from backlash” found “an unlikely ally” in Stanford researchers.
• “U.S. health agency seeks to bar grant funding to prominent biologist” based on sexual misconduct findings.
• “Barriers to investigating and reporting research misconduct: prioritising publication integrity.”
• “Canadian Medical Association apologizes to Indigenous groups for experimental harms and mistreatment.”
• “EPA’s Office of Inspector General Criticizes the EPA Scientific Integrity Office” with allegations of retaliation against scientists. 
• Prominent behavioral scientist gets an expression of concern. Our coverage of his previous EOC and retraction. 
• “China’s scientists often cite work from their own nation. Is that skewing global research rankings?”
• “Peer review survey shows regional, career-stage disparities.”
• “If generative AI accelerates science, peer review needs to catch up.”
• Oct. 1 at University of Notre Dame: “Scientific Integrity and Retractions” by our Ivan Oransky.

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 our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].