Weekend reads: Journals get letters from feds; invasion of the ‘journal snatchers’; should universities release misconduct reports?

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• Chinese funding agency sanctions 26 researchers in latest misconduct report
• Biochemist with previous image duplication retractions loses another paper
• A new journal record: Sage title retracts 678 more papers, tally over 1,500
• Medical societies call for BMJ to retract ‘misleading and irresponsible’ guideline

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 500.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):

• At least three journals received letters from a U.S. Attorney asking about “competing viewpoints.”
• “Invasion of the ‘journal snatchers’: the firms that buy science publications and turn them rogue.”
• “Why Universities Should Make Misconduct Reports Public,” by our Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky.
• The most-cited papers of all time and of the twenty-first century. And “decades-old research papers still heavily cited today.”
• “The Case for Quantity in Science Publishing.”
• “Retractions of COVID-19-related Research Publications During and After the Pandemic.”
• “African researchers warned to watch out for predatory journals.”
• “AI research summaries ‘exaggerate findings’, study warns.”
• “How randomisation has changed the British Academy’s approach to research funding.”
• “University probe finds ‘elements of plagiarism'” in President of European Parliament’s thesis.
• “Financial crisis or not, there must be no shuttering of open science.”
• “Does posting a paper on SocArXiv constitute prior publication in the eyes of AJS overlords?”: A journal’s confusing use of “may.“
• “Monash examining ethical ‘concerns’ over research by leading economist.” A link to our coverage.
• “Predatory journals even worse since ‘Get Me Off Your F*ck*ng Mailing List’ was accepted for publication.”
• “India’s retraction crisis casts shadow over scientific research.”
• Researchers ask: Can open science interventions improve reproducibility?
• “In a Ranking-Obsessed System, What Exactly Are Universities Competing For?”
• “Systematic Reviewers Have an Obligation to Promote Research Integrity.”
• “Citation proximus: the role of social and semantic ties in citing behaviour.”
• “University probes student’s paper over plagiarism claims.”
• Professor “steps down as plagiarism accusations are made public.”
• “AI bots are overwhelming some journals.”
• “Scientific journals should not charge to publish response articles.” A longstanding argument.
• “Predatory Publishers, Ethics in Publishing, and More”: Cabells interviews the professor behind the Twitter/X account @fake_journals.
• “A Scientist Is Paid to Study Maple Syrup. He’s Also Paid to Promote It.”

Upcoming Talks

• “Retractions: On the Rise, But Not Enough” with our Ivan Oransky (April 21, Penn State)
• “Scientific Integrity and Retractions” with our Ivan Oransky (April 24, Georgia State University)
• “What if we know far less than we think?” with our Ivan Oransky (April 28, Columbia University) 

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].