Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work?
The week at Retraction Watch featured:
- ‘All the red flags’: Scientific Reports retracts paper sleuths called out in open letter
- Retraction Watch is hiring! Two journalism jobs available
- eLife won’t get an impact factor, says Clarivate
- Engineering publisher pulled 57 papers in a day for peer review ‘irregularities’
Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 400.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 300 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):
- When Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. appeared on Retraction Watch back in 2011.
- “The great AI witch hunt: Reviewers’ perception and (Mis)conception of generative AI in research writing.”
- As “Switzerland establishes center for scientific integrity,” their research is “not immune to the growing phenomenon of withdrawals of scientific articles.”
- Australian “Medical council’s oversight of grant funds ‘inadequate.’”
- “Green Open Access – Free for Authors But at a Cost for Readers.”
- “Can AI review the scientific literature — and figure out what it all means?”
- “Diversity in academic publishing: we still have a lot to do.”
- “Scholarly Publishing World Slow to Embrace Generative AI.”
- “You could say that I am an accidental infrastructure provider.” More about Anita Bandrowski.
- “Public prosecutor files charges in Dresden research affair” after allegations of fraud.
- Withdrawn “Preprint on Alzheimer’s drug deaths ignites dispute among authors” who say data “don’t support the paper’s claims.”
- “Science communication will benefit from research integrity standards.”
- “Embed ethics in research publications, editors say.”
- “When claims about science become edutainment, science loses.”
- University “investigates alleged plagiarism involving history lecturers.”
- University revokes “Professor’s PhD Over Plagiarism Allegations, Sparking Accusations of Bias.”
- “Students file lawsuit against Polish ‘diploma mill’ university,” Collegium Humanum.
- The analogy of “Bad science as genre fiction”: a blog post from Andrew Gelman.
- “How to Use Generative AI Responsibly in Scientific Research” from NAS president.
- “The research literature is an unsafe workplace,” researchers say.
- Should acts of research misconduct be labeled “felonies” and questionable research practices “misdemeanours?”
- “Perceptions of Research Misconduct Among Lecturers and Students in Vietnam.”
- “The end of an era for science article metrics?”
- “Is global scientific production overheating, at risk of no longer being sustainable?”
- “Will Chinese scientists make or break the uprising in academic peer-review publishing?”
- “Two scholarly publishing cultures? Open access drives a divergence in European academic publishing practices.”
- “Scholarly Metadata as Trust Signals: Opportunities for Journal Editors.”
- Swiss funder says banning animal testing would “massively restrict basic biological and environmental research.”
- “Justice delayed is justice denied for early career plagiarism victims,” says university professor.
- “University committee flags plagiarism in selection process” for college principal.
- A key paper in the Eliezer Masliah saga, used to support drug development, has now been retracted.
- “Preprints at a crossroads – Are we compromising openness for credibility?”
- “But what happens when those niche journals cannibalize each other and fight for prominence—when one journal emerges as the de facto flagship journal, and your research community begins to see the others as second string?”
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].