Weekend reads: NEJM launches rival to MMWR; Former NIH official gets expression of concern; ‘1 in 5 chemists’ added errors to papers: study

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• Exclusive: Journal to retract Alzheimer’s study after investigation finds misconduct
• Less is more: Academic publishing needs ‘radical change,’ Cambridge press report concludes
• Exclusive: American Heart Association reviewing award to rocket scientist with seven retractions
• ‘Confusing and frankly, disturbing’: When researchers are impersonated
• Despite new retractions, suspect organ transplant papers remain in the literature 

Did you know that Retraction Watch and the Retraction Watch Database are  projects of The Center of Scientific Integrity?  Others include the Medical Evidence Project, the Hijacked Journal Checker, and the Sleuths in Residence Program. Help support this work.   

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

• “NEJM and public health group are launching rival” to CDC’s “vaunted Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.”
• Paper by former senior National Institute of Aging official gets expression of concern after reporting by Science.
• “1 in 5 chemists have deliberately added errors into their papers during peer review, study finds.”
• Primatologist settles lawsuit following “termination over alleged mishandling of contracts.”
• “AI-powered fraud: Chinese paper mills are mass-producing fake academic research.” 
• Professor “serves legal notice” to vice chancellor of university “accusing him of plagiarizing a research paper.”
• “Fifty Years of Retracted Medical Publications From 1975 to 2024.”
• “AI tools combat paper mill fraud in scientific publishing as peer review system struggles.”
• “Research funders urged to drive culture shift on negative results.”
• Statistical power in exercise science, which researchers say contributes to lack of replicability, “may be as low as 30%,” study finds. 
• “How to spot fake scientists and stop them from publishing papers.” A link to our 2020 breaking coverage of a fictitious author.
• “Errors in document-type classification: a focus on engineering publications and their publishers.”
• Paper by a Ph.D. student in Vietnam is retracted amid controversy over his publication record, including publishing “most of” his international articles in predatory journals.
• “Diamond Dreams, Unequal Realities: The Promise and Pitfalls of No-APC Open Access.”
• “Why AI transparency is not enough.”
• “How journals can break down barriers for Latin American scientists.”
• “The mirage of Open Access: articles free of charge for citizens are strangling universities.”
• A Nature journal “is encouraging authors to include” citation diversity statements, which one researcher says “reduce scholars to statistics, threaten academic rigor, and add yet another ideologically conformist hoop for academics to jump through.”
• “Common research monkey is endangered, conservation group confirms.” And “Alternatives to animal testing are the future — it’s time that journals, funders and scientists embrace them,” say researchers.
• “In an age of intense scholarly competition, experts say academic fraud is rising.”
• “Why Ph.D scholars struggle to publish: A crisis of research training and integrity.”
• “Authors publishing in companion open access journals incur higher publication costs, and yet, receive fewer citations per publication,” study finds. 
• “Will AI + OA be OK?”

Upcoming talks

• “How Should Institutions Respond to Allegations of Misconduct?” with our Ivan Oransky (October 27, 2025 Health Academy Conference, Washington, D.C.)
• “Retractions: On the Rise, But Not Enough,” with our Ivan Oransky (October 28, 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].