Weekend reads: Ivermectin study retracted; Sci-Hub and citations; animal welfare violations at chinchilla lab supplier

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:

• Elsevier says “integrity and rigor” of peer review for 400 papers fell “beneath the high standards expected”
• ‘In hindsight the mistake was quite stupid’: Authors retract paper on stroke
• Researcher committed misconduct while at NIH, say institutes — but is allowed to publish a revised version of a paper
• Paper from company claiming phototherapy could treat COVID-19 is retracted
• ‘Please don’t be afraid to talk about your errors and to correct them.’
• JAMA journal retracts paper on masks for children

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 144.

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

• “Huge study supporting ivermectin as Covid treatment withdrawn over ethical concerns.”
• “Scientific articles that get downloaded from the scholarly piracy website Sci-Hub tend to receive more citations, according to a new study…” And an earlier take, questioning the paper’s conclusions.
• “A rare court hearing later this month—the first in 6 years involving a research-related animal facility—could strip the license of one of U.S. scientists’ only suppliers of chinchillas because of animal welfare violations.”
• A group of doctors at Shishu Hospital in Bangladesh are protesting the forced retirement of a doctor, saying that it was retaliation for whistleblowing about plagiarism.
• “Peer Review, a Tarnished ‘Gold Standard.'”
• “One of the world’s most prestigious research funders has told academics that they must not include journal impact factors (JIF) in their applications, in the latest sign that the controversial metric has become discredited.”
• “Canada is adding new requirements for academic researchers to face security reviews as part of their funding applications, amid growing concern over potential threats from China.”
• “The problem with the ‘gap in the literature.’”
• Juul’s sponsorship of an entire journal issue on research about their product is “an extreme version of the model that pharma uses.”
• “[M]any published findings in autism research fail to replicate but remain popular in the literature after an initial splash.”
• “Majority of 2011 paper co-authored by [Indian government] criminal law committee member is plagiarised.”
• “I critiqued my past papers on social media — here’s what I learnt.”
• When “the policy among editors is not to accept comments.”
• “Should academics be allowed to publish anonymously?” Another look at the Journal of Controversial Ideas.
• “Many senior scientists are listed as authors on research reports done entirely by their students, but Dr. Lewontin would have none of it.”
• “Let’s stop reviewing for venues that sell research!” says a Stanford postdoc.
• “France is to bolster not-for-profit ‘diamond’ open access journals, backed by universities, academic societies and the state…”
• “University governance failings are human failings.”
• “The raw truth about paper mills.”
• “COVID-19 impact on research and publication ethics.”
• “We have an obligation to protect [the] confidentiality of employees,” said [spokesperson] Phil Weiler. “There is a publicly available resource…called Retraction Watch…that does provide probably more detail than WSU would be willing to share.”

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].