If your week flew by — we know ours did — catch up here with what you might have missed.
The week at Retraction Watch featured:
- Study is stolen, sold, published. Now the victim is accused of plagiarism
- Engineering journal plucks poultry paper for plagiarism
- Medical journal publishes a letter on AI with a fake reference to itself
- Journal retracts nearly 150 articles for compromised peer review
- Guest post: Forget pickles and ice cream. I published a fake paper on pregnancy cravings for prime numbers
In case you missed the news, the Hijacked Journal Checker now has more than 400 entries. The Retraction Watch Database has over 63,000 retractions. Our list of COVID-19 retractions is up over 640, and our mass resignations list has 50 entries. We keep tabs on all this and more. If you value this work, please consider showing your support with a tax-deductible donation. Every dollar counts.
Here’s what was happening elsewhere (some of these items may be paywalled, metered access, or require free registration to read):
- “Did a Celebrated Researcher Obscure a Baby’s Poisoning?” A link to our 2021 coverage of the researcher.
- “Critical social media posts linked to retractions of scientific papers.”
- “ArXiv preprint server clamps down on AI slop“: First-time posters now need “endorsement from an established author.” And “ArXiv says submissions must be in English: are AI translators up for the job?”
- “Science Is Drowning in AI Slop: Peer review has met its match.”
- “Five major challenges for medical bibliometrics.”
- “Back and Forth on the Value of Replication.”
- “The UK government is backing AI that can run its own lab experiments.”
- ““Fudging or Fraud? Where Research Misconduct becomes a Crime.”
- “‘Nature’ robot chemist paper corrected, but some questions remain unanswered.”
- A paper on whistleblowing with nonexistent references and published in an ethics journal has now been retracted. See our previous story.
- Deputy department chair loses another paper for image issues. Read our coverage of his previous retraction.
- “Are India’s private universities hacking global rankings?”
- A “conversation with Kevin Weil, head of OpenAI for Science.”
- “Journals should make more use of practitioners for peer review.”
- “Evaluating the ethical landscape of environmental sciences research ‘papers.”
- “When two years of academic work vanished with a single click” after researcher turned off ChatGPT’s “data consent” option.
- “Covid prompted new ways to publish research – it’s time to embrace them.”
- “Order of names on research papers ‘may stifle collaboration.'”
- Why do some gender-based studies “not survive scrutiny?”
- “Another three UK universities decline new Elsevier deal.”
- “Guinea-Bissau suspends US-funded vaccine trial as African scientists question its motives.”
- “Puberty blockers: Growing calls to pause controversial trial from medics, lawyers, and public.”
- “Reverse spin bias: preliminary observations of reporting bias in medical systematic reviews.”
- “Dealing With Worsening Ethics in Biomedical Research, a Loose Cannon in the Growth of New Generations of Scientists.”
- “Vietnam seeks solutions as research paper retractions rank among world’s highest.”
- “The retraction problem in collaborations with Saudi Arabia: evidence from 2014–2023.”
- “Cognitive pollution caused by AI has broken out in the scientific community.”
- “Genetic Data From Over 20,000 U.S. Children Misused for ‘Race Science.’” And “It’s Time to Safeguard Genomic Data.”
- “How a Forensic Biologist Exposed a DNA Lab Scandal That Shook Australia.”
- “‘Linguistic snobbery’ in peer review ‘hurts new researchers.’”
Upcoming talks
- “Maintaining Integrity in Peer-Reviewed Publications,” Jefferson Anesthesia Conference 2026, featuring our Adam Marcus (February 2, Big Sky, Montana)
- “Responding to Research Misconduct Allegations,” an AAAS EurekAlert! webinar featuring our Ivan Oransky (February 3, virtual)
- “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].