Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?
The week at Retraction Watch featured:
- Crossref suspends company’s membership after Retraction Watch report
- Wiley medical journal retracts dozens of papers for manipulated peer review, with more to come
- Science places expressions of concern on two articles as Toronto’s Sinai Health investigates
Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 450. 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):
- An advent calendar by Anna Abalkina about publishing misconduct.
- “Dozens of the world’s most cited scientists stop falsely claiming to work in Saudi Arabia.”
- Our Ivan Oransky’s testimony before the Canada House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research. The session starts at minute mark 17:11, and his testimony is at about 17:21, with Q&A after that.
- “India takes out giant nationwide subscription to 13,000 journals.” And: “India’s One Nation One Subscription deal enriches publishers and benefits few.”
- “Beyond authorship: Analyzing disciplinary patterns of contribution statements using the CRediT taxonomy.”
- “Academic papers increasingly cite occupied Ukrainian territories as being inside Russia.”
- “Why are academic authors treated as disposably as sperm donors?”
- “A long-term assessment of the multidisciplinary degree of multidisciplinary journals.”
- “Prevailing predatory publishing: a critical evaluation of publications from Pakistan’s physical education and sport science domains.”
- “Research integrity policies in African HE [higher education] few and far between.”
- “Scientists under fire for publishing flu recipe for next pandemic in top journal.”
- “Can AI fix the peer review bottleneck? Top journals weigh in.”
- “Shandong, Jiangsu, Shanghai, Henan, and Anhui are the hotspots for retractions.”
- Dutch secretary of state’s thesis “was created using ‘cut and paste work,'” says report.
- “‘Systematic reviews’ that aim to extract broad conclusions from many studies are in peril” thanks to paper mills.
- “Metrics fraud on ResearchGate”: study recommends fixes to “seriously flawed metrics.”
- “Science communicators, flat-eathers [sic], or fitness coaches: who is citing scientific publications in youtube video descriptions?”
- “I’m just a link in generative AI’s content supply chain,” says researcher.
- “Awareness of Jordanian Researchers About Predatory Journals: A Need for Training.”
- “Is there any alternative to the gamification of academic metrics?”
- “This scientist’s name was used to write fake peer reviews.”
- “Dodgy science in crosshairs as fraud audit censures Australia’s top research agency.”
- “[R]etractions due to honest errors”: researchers look at “error types and author teams.”
- “Plastic Fantastic, scientific fraud, and institutional norms,” a podcast.
- “I fought for a colleague’s tenure. Then I started looking deeper.”
- “South Korea Faces Growing Threat from Academic ‘Paper Mills,’ Report Finds.”
- “The costs of competition in distributing scarce research funds.”
- “What do you do if somebody else publishes your thesis as a book?” A podcast.
- “Problems with and Consequences of Relying on Peer Review in Evaluating Expert Testimony.”
- “Cork man accused of defrauding EU research agency of grants worth almost €600,000.”
- “How Medical Journals Are Grappling With AI in Peer Review.”
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].