Weekend reads: U.S. EPA tells scientists to stop publishing; ‘unreliable’ Tylenol research; Alzheimer’s paper retracted

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• University email addresses no longer effective bulwark against fake peer review
• Study on apple cider vinegar for weight loss retracted after many raise concerns
• Second study using ‘Tin Man Syndrome’ X-ray under scrutiny following Retraction Watch inquiry
• Math has publication fraud, too
• Authors defend retracted paper on vitamin D and COVID-19 critic called ‘deeply bizarre‘
• Taylor & Francis threatens legal action against anonymous group’s ‘highly defamatory’ claims 

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 500.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

• “EPA tells scientists to stop publishing studies, employees say.”
• “Trump’s Tylenol warning cited a Harvard dean’s research. But a judge called his shifting conclusions ‘unreliable.'”
• “Alzheimer’s paper retracted over apparent image duplication.”
• Science journalist writes telepathy paper using ChatGPT – and gets it published.
• “Authors retract Science paper on controversial fMRI method.”
• In Memoriam: Skeptical Scalpel, James E. Barone, “whose evidence-based social media posts questioned claims without personal attacks.”
• Nearly 60% of retractions in sustainability research “were due to misconduct and falsification of data,” researchers find.
• Study finds in otolaryngology research, “98.2% of citations that occurred after articles were retracted did not acknowledge their retracted status.”
• “Chatbots and large language models are being used to fact-check scientific work, but how effective are they?”
• Science “looks in the mirror” in recent study to root out potential publication biases.
• “Gold standard science requires gold standard scholarship,” says editor of Science. Researcher counters: “the Editorial takes the administration’s bad-faith argument and runs with it.”
• “Let’s get negative about scholarly publishing.”
• “Gerontologists Combating Fraudulent Research Participants: Recommendations from Design to Dissemination.”
• “Science has forgotten that the greatest breakthroughs often come from outsiders who are able to take a fresh perspective.”
• “Canada’s federal granting agencies are updating their research guidelines in the face of increasingly elaborate practices of scientific fraud.”
• LLM bias in peer review: Researchers find a “strong and consistent institutional-prestige bias: identical papers attributed to low-prestige affiliations face a significantly higher risk of rejection.”
• “Junk science presented as public health research”: A critique of a paper claiming 7% of adults have been present at a mass shooting. 
• “Gender, Language and Money Are Still Keeping Researchers from ‘Succeeding’ in Science”: Researcher discusses his recent paper. 
• “Publish Less, Publish Better: Scientists Call for Predatory Publishing Practices To Stop.”
• “Different Perspectives on Scientific Misconduct”: Reflections from 12th Heidelberg Laureate Forum. 
• “AI models are using material from retracted scientific papers.”
• “Five Chinese Scientists Stripped of Awards for Corruption and Misconduct.”
• University president “still under review for alleged plagiarism a year later.”
• A recording of the “Community for Rigor” conference at UPenn earlier this month, featuring our Ivan Oransky.
• “The ‘Deadly Sins’ of Scientific Endeavour as a Narrative Framework for Self-Reflection in Science Communication.”
• “Can Harvard Cure Science’s Mistrust Epidemic?”
• “Meeting the challenges posed by mass-produced manuscripts and click-data science.”
• “Author of reviews of gender affirming care decries ‘egregious misuse’ of the findings to justify bans.”
• “Remembering Drummond Rennie—Champion of Integrity in Science and Scientific Publication.” A link to our article on Rennie “in his own words.”
• “Chinese COVID whistleblower sentenced to 4 more years in jail, group says.”
• “Fake studies: Dubious companies undermine science.”
• “What is the true purpose of scientific peer review?” asks astrophysics professor.
• “Jay Bhattacharya Wants to Fix Science. Is He in Over His Head?”
• “How Academic Publishing Exploits Public Science,” from former NIH associate director.

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].