Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?
The week at Retraction Watch featured:
- Wiley journal retracts over 200 more papers
- COVID-19 vaccine myocarditis paper raises questions about what earns post-publication peer review
- Do men or women retract more? A study found the answer is…complicated
- Misappropriation of undergraduate work leads to study retraction
- Former Italian university head faces retractions and criminal investigations
Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 500. There are more than 58,000 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 Quiet Way the NIH Is Stalling Some Research Before It Starts.”
- “FDA uncovers ‘significant’ data integrity concerns” at Indian contract research organization.
- “Publishers trial paying peer reviewers — what did they find?”
- What happens when retracted studies are included in systematic reviews? And what can journal editors do about the problem?
- “Do clinical practice guidelines for low back pain include predatory journal or retracted publications?”
- “The file drawer problem in social science survey experiments.”
- Study finds “early-career researchers are disproportionately compelled to adhere to the ‘publish or perish’ paradigm.”
- “Trump Administration Cancels NIH Scientific Integrity Policy.”
- In some national surveys, “observed misconduct was often not reported because of fear of retaliation, missing instructions or seeing no point in reporting,” researchers find.
- “Flawed medical studies can end up in doctors’ advice. We developed a tool to stop it,” say researchers.
- “Let’s call ‘research misconduct’ what it really is – fakery and fraud.”
- “Why we need to go ‘beyond the article’ to transform research”: PLOS’ new policy.
- Professor “faces backlash over retracted gender dysphoria study.” A link to our coverage.
- “Reliable science takes time. But the current system rewards speed.”
- “Should meta-scientists hold themselves to higher standards?”
- “Assessment reform and publishing reform need to go hand in hand.”
- The scientist who went to prison “Over Gene-Edited Babies Seeks Comeback.”
- Just five journals made the 2025 Chinese Academy of Sciences Early Warning Journal List. Last year: 24.
- “Gender gap in research publishing is improving — slowly.”
- “The Challenges and Future of Peer Review.”
- Florida surgeon general’s tenure includes “missing grant funds, underperformance and unfulfilled promises.”
- A publisher’s “lack of editorial action has left the scientific community vulnerable to reading and citing hundreds of problematic articles,” say a team of leading sleuths.
- “China has already taken steps to reduce retractions of papers from its hospitals.”
- “Show your working: how the ‘open science’ movement tackles scientific misconduct.”
- “Fired prof accused of research misconduct, FBI involvement unclear.”
- “What we can learn from listening to the output of hyperprolific academic authors.”
- COPE launches new guideline on author fees and waivers.
- “What’s in a Chinese name: scientists fight for identity when forced to use Latin alphabet.”
- “Rival scientists are teaming up to break scientific stalemates.”
- “Fake textbook from Springer? How AI-generated works threaten science.”
- “Coding error caused layoffs at National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke this week, source says.”
- “Misconduct Detection — Evolving Methods & Lessons from 15 Years of Scientific Image Sleuthing.“
- “Can news and social media attention reduce the influence of problematic research?”
Upcoming event
- “Fostering Accountability for the Integrity of Research Studies” with our Ivan Oransky, as well as organizer Dorothy Bishop, Anna Abalkina, Jennifer Byrne, Guillaume Cabanac and others (St. John’s College, Oxford, April 7-9)
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, like us on Facebook, follow us on LinkedIn, 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].