If your week flew by — we know ours did — catch up here with what you might have missed.
The week at Retraction Watch featured:
- New rule in Peru restricts authors with retractions from getting special bonuses
- ‘Comically bad’ datasets used to train clinical models for stroke and diabetes
- Feud between physicists ends in defamation verdict
- How the media hypes “research that is absurd on its face”
- Widely criticized keto diet study retracted
In case you missed the news, the Hijacked Journal Checker now has more than 400 entries. The Retraction Watch Database has over 65,000 retractions. Our list of COVID-19 retractions is up to 650, and our mass resignations list has more than 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):
- “Researchers who use hallucinated references to face arXiv ban.”
- “U.S. researchers face new restrictions on publishing with foreign collaborators.”
- “The Curious Case of Max Planck retracted papers. When past scientific practices meet contemporary publishing norms.” The article had its genesis in our Retractions by Nobel Prize winners list.
- “Marc Tessier-Lavigne addresses new book’s allegations about his conduct in Stanford misconduct case.” And a review of How To Rule the World by Theo Baker, who exposed the Tessier-Lavigne case.
- “AI research papers are getting better, and it’s a big problem for scientists.”
- “Seoul court rules SNU professor’s dismissal for plagiarism lawful.”
- Retraction Watch appears in the June Harper’s Index.
- “Who Becomes the Prey of Predatory Journals: A Glance at the Tip of the Iceberg.”
- “Scholarly Publishing Costs Under Scrutiny by Trump Administration.”
- 25 papers retracted from one university in India “amid integrity and AI concerns.”
- “A striking retraction from Ecology Letters.”
- “Journal lists advance both rigour and relevance.”
- “Citation Cliques in Low Impact Journals.”
- “There are 13 ways to analyse a replication study, but only one of them is coherent.”
- “Academic Conferences are Potentially Facing Denominator Gaming Caused by Fully Automated Scientific Agents.”
- “Playing it safe: The current academic system doesn’t incentivise risk-taking.”
- “New evidence of weakness and inconsistency in the regulation of research misconduct in Australia.”
- Researcher says AI tools will “smuggle” biases like the Matthew effect “back into new academic hierarchies in ways that are increasingly difficult to audit.”
- “Qualitative research can and should be more open and reproducible.”
- “Declaring retractions is a small step towards accountability” in India higher education.
- Major accounting firm “retracts study after researchers discover AI hallucinations.”
- “Toward contextualized research integrity in higher education: a fuzzy-set analysis of individual and organizational configurations among university faculty.”
- “Plagiarism of ideas in the age of generative artificial intelligence.”
- “The uncritical adoption of AI in science is alarming — we urgently need guard rails.”
- “Who gets credit for research? How the hidden rules of academic authorship can leave women at a disadvantage.”
- Researchers look at citations in MDPI journals and find “33% of citations were intra-publisher citations—including 10% self-citations—highlighting the internal citation density within MDPI’s journal network.”
- “Total handling time and author ratings of journals: Evidence from an online review platform.”
- “The scientific journal, beyond experts: the communication strategies of The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet.”
- “The end of scientific publications?”
- “The end of an era: farewell to the Journal Quality list.”
- “Harvard Paid Claudine Gay $1.5 Million in 2024 After Resignation, Financial Disclosures Show.”
- “Genetic survey exposes flaws in widely used mouse models.”
- “Hallucinated citations highest in social sciences preprints site.”
- “New York Magazine reviewing work of writer facing plagiarism allegations.”
- “Calls for African code of conduct for research integrity.”
- “Then versus now: keeping pace with research integrity threats” from vice president of publishing ethics at Taylor and Francis Group.
- “Did this scientist go too far trying to save Ecuador’s wildlife?”
- “Reviewer 2 and the Ministry of Truth: Peer review, AI, and the quiet politics of academic legitimacy.”
- “Looking back at early attempts to remove people from part of the peer review process.”
- “NoTrue, Silence and Rubbish Communications: satirical journals give Chinese academics a pressure valve.”
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].