Weekend reads: Another CDC journal in trouble; Web of Science company endorses Iraq awards; on the scarcity of peer reviewers

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• Embattled journal Cureus delisted from Web of Science, loses impact factor
• ‘A new low’: Researchers at Iraqi university must cite colleagues, school journals in papers
• Challenge accepted: A reader wrote a program to find fake references in books
• Widespread image reuse, manipulation uncovered in animal studies of brain injury
• Exclusive: Web of Science company involved in dubious awards in Iraq

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):

• The future of the CDC journal Preventing Chronic Disease “in limbo” after most of the staff is let go. 
• “When Reviewer Scarcity Becomes a Reason for Rejection, Scientific Integrity Is at Risk.”
• “Academic journals have a fraud problem”: A conversation with Elisabeth Bik.
• “Justice Department unexpectedly drops fraud case against Alzheimer’s scientist.”
• “A Journal Promised to Retract a Flawed Autism Study. It’s Still Online.”
• The latest retraction for neurology researcher brings his total to nine. Read our 2023 story about him.
• A researcher who tried to get a case of microRNA annotation corrected in 2022 makes the case for “rigorous” standards.
• “First Pan-African neuroscience journal gets ready to launch.”
• “Fraud is no longer a series of isolated ethical lapses but a business model that exploits vulnerable points in the research economy.” A response to a study of widespread research fraud; the authors respond.
• “Who should control open access, the markets or the commons?”
• “A review of annual statements on research integrity from UK institutions in 2023-4, with a focus on research fraud.”
• “What is it about humans that leads to the urge to censor and punish and silence people for their opinions?” Steven Pinker on academic ‘cancel culture.’
• “How the Proliferation of Fraudulent Scientific Papers Is Threatening the Integrity of Cancer Research.”
• “Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Concerns From JAMA Network Peer Reviewers.”
• “China’s Historic Rise to the Top of the Scientific Ladder”— “How did we get here?”
• “Google Scholar tool gives extra credit to first and last authors.”
• “Problems with eLife’s new article type: Replication studies.”
• “Why I no longer engage with Nature publishing group”: Researcher responds after being asked to review a manuscript. 
• “A Difference of Opinion Editors: Interrogating the ethics of self-plagiarism in academia.”
• “The Unseen Co-Author: How Generative AI Is Reshaping Academic Integrity And Supervision In Pakistan.”
• New offers from “big five” publishers “‘still too costly’ for UK universities.”
• Nearly all surveyed medical and Ph.D. students in Ukraine used AI for academic purposes, some for academic dishonesty, study found.
• “AI hallucinates because it’s trained to fake answers it doesn’t know.”
• “Open Reviews is a good first step. Pseudo-Anonymous Reviews can take it further”: An opinion piece and its peer reviews.
• “The long wait: unpacking the causes behind peer review delays.”
• “Academic Publishing Keeps Getting More Expensive. Some Harvard Scholars Want to Make It Free.”
• “How Fanfiction Can Help Us Reimagine Scholarly Publishing.”

Upcoming talks

• “What to do next?” with our Ivan Oransky (November 18, International Research Integrity Conference, Sydney)
• “Retractions: On the Rise, But Not Enough” with our Ivan Oransky (November 19, Association for Interdisciplinary Meta-research and Open Science 2025 Conference, University of Sydney)

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].