Weekend reads: ‘The Temporal Crisis’; researcher sues university that fired him; ‘Devastating Legacy of Lies’

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 450. There are more than 55,000 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):

  • “The Slow Cancellation of Innovation: A critical look at modern funding.”
  • “US scientist cleared of hiding ties to China sues university that fired him.”
  • “The Devastating Legacy of Lies in Alzheimer’s Research.”
  • “7 steps to junk science that can achieve worldly success,” a blog post from Andrew Gelman.
  • “It’s time to extend the FAIR Principles of data sharing.”
  • “Why are universities pulling out of big publishing deals?”
  • “Wow: ”medical journals” & headhunters want me?!?”: A blog post from a retired journalist. 
  • “‘Never seen anything like this’: Trump’s team halts NIH meetings and travel.”
  • “Why Editors At Scientific Journals Are Resigning En Masse.” Our Ivan Oransky on Science Friday.
  • “New research platform seeks to reform academic peer review process.”
  • “The fight against scientific fraud is being organized.”
  • “What happens when you let ChatGPT assess impact case studies?”
  • “Research to Ruin: The Worsening Spectre of Academic Fraud,” featuring our Ivan Oransky.
  • “When industry manipulates science to prevent” a ban on forever chemicals.
  • “Flying Blind: How Thorough are [institutional review boards] when Assessing Scientific Value?”
  • “The Broken Science Initiative 2025,” aiming to “address systemic issues within modern science.”
  • “Europe launches hub to boost diamond open access publishing.”
  • Former journal editor in chief discusses the “climate of publishing — a climate that is changing.”
  • Card game “Publish or Perish simulates the experience of building a career in scientific research.”
  • “Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in the research process – A survey of researchers’ practices and perceptions.”
  • “‘Publish or perish’ culture blamed for reproducibility crisis.”
  • “Can AI create high-quality, publishable research articles?”
  • “Seniority, authorship order, and severity of punishment in research misconduct – shared/honorary authorships as explanations for an apparent paradox.”
  • “University completes review” of South Korean first lady’s degree thesis.
  • “Does Altering A Dataset Merit Retraction?”
  • “AI-Generated Junk Science Is a Big Problem on Google Scholar, Research Suggests.”
  • “How Can We Deal with P-hacking?”
  • “How large language models are transforming peer review.”
  • “This President’s Dissertation Contains Copied Language. Her University Says She Was Cleared.”
  • Researchers propose “five actionable initiatives to bolster the fight against China’s retraction crisis.” 
  • “Acknowledgments in scientific papers by Ukrainian researchers during the initial years of the Russo-Ukrainian war.”
  • “‘Hypocritical’ journal walkout ‘left junior researchers in lurch.’”
  • Researcher proposes AuthormetriX, an application that calculates non-inflated author credit.

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, 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].


Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

Leave a Reply

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