Weekend reads: Prof resigns as student’s suicide is investigated; the ‘Stanford’ mask study that Stanford disowned; indictments and a prison sentence

Before we present this week’s Weekend Reads, a question: Do you enjoy our weekly roundup? If so, we could really use your help. Would you consider a tax-deductible donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance.

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• “[N]o intention to make any scientific fraud” as researchers lose four papers
• ‘Unfair and unsubstantiated’: Journal retracts paper suggesting smoking is linked to lower COVID-19 risk
• Two retractions spotlight the ethical challenges of consent for case reports

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 122.

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

• “University of Florida Professor Resigns Amid Investigations Into Student’s Suicide.” Background here.
• A study purportedly out of Stanford on masks and COVID-19 “lacks evidence on masks, isn’t linked to Stanford.” And more from Snopes.
• “Ex-Dean at Temple Indicted on Charges of Manipulating Rankings.”
• A math prof is indicted for grant fraud. And another is sent to prison “for Conspiring to Steal Trade Secrets and Sell to China.”
• “15 journals are outsourcing something central to science…the peer-review process.”
• “Bones of Black children killed in police bombing used in Ivy League anthropology course.”
• “Is choosing the best scientist that simple?”
• “A research misconduct severity matrix that could serve to harmonize adjudication of findings.”
• “Retractions and Withdrawals in Neurology Literature: A 2020 Analysis of the Retraction Watch Database.”
• The “most important contribution of science reporters,” says Deborah Blum, “is to portray research accurately in both its rights and its wrongs and stand unflinchingly for the integrity of the story. “
• “If the evaluation done in the original peer review process were public, news accounts would be less credulous, and public understanding of science might be more sophisticated.”
• “Seriously. Why don’t you publish your research here?”
• “Linux bans University of Minnesota for committing malicious code.”
• “Researchers worldwide have turned to analysing data, planning experiments and writing and reviewing more papers as their lab time has been disrupted, a global survey finds.”
• “Could pandemic put paid to conference publishing?”
• “Most analyses of misinformation focus on popular and social media, but the scientific enterprise faces a parallel set of problems—from hype and hyperbole to publication bias and citation misdirection, predatory publishing, and filter bubbles.”
• “6 tips to help you detect fake science news.”
• “Medicine’s Privileged Gatekeepers: Producing Harmful Ignorance About Racism And Health.”
• “An archaeology society hosted a talk against returning Indigenous remains. Some want a new society.”
• “Students, Experts Criticize Harvard Study Suggesting Early Emergence of Covid-19 in Wuhan.”
• “A page-turner about research cheating” links it to narcissism. 
• “Kerala University faculty in research fraud row.”
• “More importantly, how can you ensure that your manuscript passes journal checks and moves on to peer review quickly?”
• “Are we paying-to-play? A quantitative assessment of Canadian open access research in ecology and evolution.”
• “As a sacrifice to Science, I’m going to criticise every single paper I’ve ever written…”

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a one-time tax-deductible contribution or a monthly tax-deductible donation to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, 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].