Weekend reads: ‘How long does it take to kill zombie papers?’; ‘The H-Index of Suspicion’; former Springer editors launch new journal

Dear RW readers, we look forward to wrapping up the week with Weekend Reads. If you enjoy it too, please consider showing your support with a tax-deductible donation. 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.  

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• Exclusive: In reversal, former vice chancellor in Pakistan who was let off hook for plagiarism faces sanctions
• Dana-Farber settles suit alleging image manipulation for $15 million
• ‘Elite cohort’ of biz school scholars and editors scratch each others’ backs, study finds
• ORI has released just two misconduct findings this year
• World Bank report ‘removed for review’ of nonexistent references after Retraction Watch inquiry

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

• “Slaying the undead: How long does it take to kill zombie papers?”
• “The H-Index of Suspicion: How Culture, Incentives, and AI Challenge Scientific Integrity.”
• “Editors at Springer’s Journal of Philosophical Logic Resign, Launch New Open Access Journal.”
• “Hack reveals reviewer identities for huge AI conference,” leading to “exposure of peer-review records for 10,000 papers.”
• “Publisher under fire after ‘fake’ citations found in AI ethics guide.” A link to our coverage of another Springer Nature book with fake citations, which the publisher later retracted. 
• “Retractions due to ethical violations or lack of approval in medical and allied sciences: an analysis.”
• “China’s research paper boom could be a ‘false prosperity.'”
• “AI Slop Is Spurring Record Requests for Imaginary Journals.”
• “More than half of researchers now use AI for peer review — often against guidance,” survey finds.
• “Any Old Tom, Dick or Harry: The Citation Impact of First Name Genderedness.”
• “How recent is recent? Retrospective analysis of suspiciously timeless citations.”
• “Researchers call for retraction of two recent Nature studies about AI-generated crystals.”
• “University of Maryland President Cleared of Plagiarism.”
• “Will AI stop new curation-led publishing models thriving before they’ve even had a chance to grow?”
• “Safeguarding Open Science from exploitative practices.”
• “Deep Research, Shallow Agency: What Academic Deep Research Can and Can’t Do.”
• “Managing retracted articles: Awareness and responsibilities of library professionals.”
• Professor accused of plagiarism in a paper involving former South Korean first lady “indicted for repeatedly failing to appear as a witness during a national audit.”
• “NSF softens grant-review rules to cope with backlog.”
• “Top MIT lawyer deposed in whistleblower lawsuit over Media Lab agriculture startup” after researcher claims retaliation for reporting misconduct allegations. 
• “Scientists Share Insights on How to Improve Academic Research.”
• “Using the contributor role taxonomy (CRediT) as a tool in resolving authorship disputes at the NIH.”
• Researchers “explore the role of Anglo-American English hegemony in academic publishing.”
• “How PhD students suffered under years of misconduct by Professor M.”
• “Science sleuths raise concerns about scores of bioengineering papers.”
• “Response of French research institutions to research misconduct remains inadequate,” writes Raphaël Lévy. 
• “Researchers who use generative AI to write papers are publishing more,” study finds. And “How to Spot AI Hallucinations Like a Reference Librarian.”
• “NIH’s proposed caps on open-access publishing fees roil scientific community.”
• “Penn State RIO: To Build Crucial Trust, Understand Culture, Offer Resources.”
• “Tips and tricks for writing constructive peer reviews.”
• Women in STEM initiative released a poster series of its “supporters” sourced almost entirely from free stock photo websites, an investigation finds.
• Elsevier’s Journal of Molecular Liquids is one of four journals delisted from Clarivate’s Web of Science this month.

Upcoming talks

• “Scientific Integrity Challenged by New Editorial Practices,” featuring our Ivan Oransky (February 12, 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].