Weekend reads: Majorana manipulation allegations; Norway’s most-published researcher committed misconduct; ‘second chance’ for convicted Harvard chemist

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• ‘Now is not the time to fade’: Retraction Watch awarded Council of Science Editors’ highest honor
• A ‘stupid mistake’: EPA researcher added their underage child as an author on manuscript
• Journal collected $400,000 for papers that it later retracted
• Web of Science delists bioengineering journal in wake of paper mill cleanup
• Journal investigating placebo effect study following Retraction Watch inquiry

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 500. There are more than 59,000 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):

• “‘Data manipulations’ alleged in study that paved the way for Microsoft’s quantum chip”: Our latest collaboration with Science. 
• University finds Norway’s former most published researcher committed research misconduct. A link to our previous coverage. 
• “‘Second chance’: convicted US chemist Charles Lieber moves to Chinese university.”
• “Trump Withdraws U.S. Attorney Nominee” who alleged bias in medical journals. 
• “Two gynecologists punished for research misconduct” after endometriosis study contained patient cohort that was over half male. 
• “Scientific societies to do climate assessment after Trump administration dismissed authors.”
• Researchers use Retraction Watch as a template to investigate “how science communicators and journalists approach (hybrid) debate about scientific norms.”
• Gynecologist performed research on women “without their consent during procedures.”
• “My departure from the U isn’t tied to plagiarism allegation,” says Rachel Hardeman. 
• Researcher “advocates for a paradigm shift in how editors handle communications with authors during the peer review process.”
• “Can Germany rein in its academic bullying problem?”
• “Handling conflicts of interest concerns more than transparency,” a commentary on a paper discussing “funder and authors’ financial conflicts of interest” in drug and device trials.
• “P hacking — Five ways it could happen to you.”
• “Characteristics of Biomedical Retractions in China.” “The rising threat of predatory journals and paper mills in respiratory medicine and research.”
• A study spanning “eight years of empirical research on research integrity.”
• “‘Publish or perish’ culture fuelling research misconduct in India.”
• “Asian Tricks and Research Misconduct: From Orientalism and Occidentalism to Solidarity against Audit Cultures.”
• COPE’s statement on “undue influence” on journals by “any political, corporate or social entity.”
• “Google Scholar is (still) doing nothing about citation manipulation.”
• Three Bulgarian rectors who “were investigated for plagiarism” last year still hold their titles. A link to our coverage of another accused dean.
• “Fraudulent Research Falsely Attributed to Credible Researchers—An Emerging Challenge for Journals?” 
• “eLife retains academic support despite losing Impact Factor.”
• “Extraordinarily corrupt or statistically commonplace? Reproducibility crises may stem from a lack of understanding of outcome probabilities.”
• Researchers analyze the “distribution of questionable publications and journals along with their interplay with countries.”
• “The do’s and don’ts of scientific image editing.”

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].