Weekend reads: Stopping citation hallucinations; the ‘uncanny valley’ of predatory journals; fighting back against misconduct

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• ‘Article broker’ in China trying to hook journal editors with fishy publishing deals
• Deputy department chair loses paper for image duplication, more retractions to follow
• ​​University vice chancellor’s work crawling with ‘tortured phrases’
• When you discover you’re an author on a paper you’ve never seen

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 500. There are more than 60,000 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?

Here’s what was happening elsewhere (some of these items may be paywalled, metered access, or require free registration to read):

• “Can researchers stop AI making up citations?”
• The “concept of the ‘uncanny valley’” in distinguishing predatory journals from legitimate ones: a study. 
• A podcast on “how the scientific community is fighting back” against research misconduct. 
• Paper on sexual harassment receives expression of concern after author accused of plagiarism — and sexual harassment. 
• “On a Slow Boat to Publication: Rethinking How We Disseminate Medical Research.” A related study on the editorial process and a response editorial.
• “University researcher irradiated guinea pigs, hamsters beyond approved levels, killing some,” says watchdog group.
• “When AI rejects your grant proposal: algorithms are helping to make funding decisions” at a foundation in Spain. 
• Researchers say “perceiving the science to be uncertain negatively mediated the effects of preprint disclosure on credibility appraisals among Republicans.”
• “Pandora’s Box Reopened: Can Generative AI Restore Hope or Result in a Decline in the Quest for Academic Integrity”?
• “AI tool detects LLM-generated text in research papers and peer reviews.”
• “AI-generated medical data can sidestep usual ethics review, universities say.”
• “Reckoning with Retractions in Research Funding Reviews: The Case of China.”
• “Researchers linked to fake network awarded millions in funding.”
• Study “explores how research group structures influence citation patterns.” 
• “How an academic betrayal led me to change my authorship practices.”
• David Baltimore, who was the “subject of attacks” in a case foundational to the history of the ORI, has died.
• “The number of clinical trials in China is rapidly rising. Can scientists trust their results?”
• “Research integrity needs a kindness agenda or we will lose” early-career researchers.
• “Federal Report on Drinking Is Withdrawn,” and guidelines “will instead be influenced by competing study … which found that moderate alcohol consumption was healthy.”
• “Dismissing the academic merits of ChatGPT is intellectually dishonest.”
• “Funders and universities urged to join fight against paper mills.”
• Study looks at how biomedical journal editors-in-chief feel about AI use in their journals.
• AI “could be used for” Research Excellence Framework, which helps determine allocation of government funding for UK research.
• “Beyond ‘we used ChatGPT’: a new way to declare AI in research.”

Upcoming talks

• “Doctors’ Lounge“: An evening “examining the quality control challenges that we all face in our quest to stay current as medical practitioners” featuring our Ivan Oransky (September 29, virtual)

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].