Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?
The week at Retraction Watch featured:
- NIH-funded replication studies are not the answer to the reproducibility crisis in pre-clinical research
- $900,000 grant to Retraction Watch’s parent organization will fund forensic analysis of articles that affect human health. A link to Nature’s coverage
- ‘Anyone can do this’: Sleuths publish a toolkit for post-publication review
- Fourth retraction for Italian scientist comes 11 years after sleuths flagged paper
- 10 years after the downfall of a same-sex marriage canvassing study, tenure, some better practices — and an engagement
Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 500.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):
- “‘Integrity index’ flags universities with high retraction rates.”
- Plastic surgeon suspended after he “falsely gave the impression” he had a PhD from Harvard.
- “The White House Gutted Science Funding. Now It Wants to ‘Correct’ Research“: More on the ‘gold standard science’ executive order.
- medRxiv and bioRxiv cofounder makes Time’s list of 100 people influencing health.
- “US veterans agency orders scientists not to publish in journals without clearance.” Or did it?
- Two journals say they will no longer “consider submissions that include sports-related injury, treatment, or recovery data” that is publicly obtained.
- “Falling Dollar, Rising Prices”: the effect of inflation on global buying power for APCs.
- “When society publishing suffers, research suffers”: over half of surveyed societies reported flat or declined revenue from peer-reviewed journals since 2019.
- “Does collaboration outside academia lead to greater scientific impact?”
- Researchers say International Committee of Medical Journal Editors “Should Create a Certification System to Identify Predatory Journals.”
- In survey of researchers from four countries, nearly half admitted to “deleting data point based on pure gut” or “co-authoring out of mutual benefit.”
- “Research integrity in Spain: Great expectations, mediocre results.”
- “Researchers who ‘pivot’ into new fields should not be given a citation penalty.”
- “Why don’t medicinal chemists from industry publish anymore?”
- “Let Unfunded Grant Applications See the Light of Day.”
- Possible solutions to the “crisis” of biomedical research reproducibility.
- “Bot-made art undermines research and public trust in science, say illustrators.”
- “When your science is attacked, how do you cope?”: Advice from embattled researcher.
- “Science in the Gray Zone“: A podcast on scientific sleuthing.
- “A New Concept” for funding journals: “long-term public funding as a continuous task” and “quality control” through journal evaluations.
- “And Plato met ChatGPT”: the myth of Theuth and Thamus applied to chatbots in academic papers.
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].