Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?
The week at Retraction Watch featured:
- University of Toronto should take action on flawed breast screening study, says longtime critic
- Experiment using AI-generated posts on Reddit draws fire for ethics concerns
- AI-Reddit study leader gets warning as ethics committee moves to ‘stricter review process’
- Why has it taken more than a year to correct a COVID-19 paper?
- A Ph.D. in paper mills?
- Former cancer researcher who sued university for discrimination hits 35 retractions
Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 500.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):
- “Citing N.I.H. Cuts, a Top Science Journal Stops Accepting Submissions.”
- Journal publishes out-of-scope paper by “mistake.”
- “Feds cancel grant, call out U of M amid new case of professor misconduct allegations.”
- Why “misuse of generative AI is worse than plagiarism.”
- “Research Integrity Is A Clown Car.”
- “The politicization of retraction risks harm to science” and could lead to “under-exploration” of issues.
- “Managing Multi-Institutional Jurisdiction in Cases of Research Misconduct.”
- “Recent Drop in Life Science Preprint Posting Due to Capacity Problems at Research Square.”
- “Scientific Integrity Under Threat: The Role of the IDSA, PIDS, and SHEA Journals in an Evolving Political Landscape.”
- “Rethinking the production and publication of machine-readable expressions of research findings.”
- “How to protect research data: Contingency plans are needed to shore up important information.”
- “China’s new journal publishing benchmarks to boost scientific soft power.”
- US NSF director resigns “amid grant terminations, job cuts, and controversy.”
- “Health journals sprint ahead in the race to attract female authors.”
- “As the DOJ questions journals, how can we reasonably promote ‘competing viewpoints’ in science?”
- University “accused of mishandling plagiarism allegations against influential professor.”
- Researchers look at “grammatical constructions used to represent agency and assign responsibility” in over 3,000 retraction notices.
- Case-based learning is more effective at teaching residents about research misconduct than lectures, study finds.
- “The Impact of Inflation on APC Costs.”
- “10 reasons why the science research journal has passed its sell-by date.”
- “Understanding ORCID adoption among academic researchers.”
- Why “using AI in scientific peer review is fraught with danger.”
- “Widespread lack of article accessibility policies among ecology and evolution journals.”
- “I Submitted A Fake Fart Paper.”
Upcoming talks
- Managing editor Kate Travis moderates “Behind the Music: A Candid Conversation with Journal Editors and Publishers,” at the 21st Annual Meeting of the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (May 13, Washington, D.C. )
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].