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:
- Journal distances itself from cash for citations scheme after Retraction Watch report
- ‘We have done a terrible job’: Journal retracts, replaces paper on mosquito-borne infections
- A correction is retracted (sort of)
- Publisher retracts paper with ethics committee discrepancy after question from Retraction Watch
Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 166. And there are now more than 30,000 retractions in our database.
Here’s what was happening elsewhere (some of these items may be paywalled, metered access, or require free registration to read):
- “‘I hope you die’: how the COVID pandemic unleashed attacks on scientists.”
- “Leading Peruvian archaeologist ousted by U.S. National Academy of Sciences.”
- How much does it really cost a journal to publish an article? Less than prestigious journals claim, according to a new analysis.
- “MD Anderson hit with ethics complaint over failure to disclose clinical trial results.”
- “Kyoto University to close leading primate center over misuse of construction funds.”
- “The size of scientific fields may impede the rise of new ideas.”
- “Writing for ‘International Orthopaedics’: authorship, fraud, and ethical concerns.”
- “[A]n administrative law judge in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) today permanently revoked the license of a leading supplier of chinchillas for U.S. research.”
- A look at “Journal titles and mission statements” in “business, management and accounting research.”
- “[I] argue that hostile, unethical, and biased behavior of reviewers and editors often arises from a serious nonfinancial conflict of interest, which should not be ignored or undermined.”
- “Chilean researchers unhappy following investigation of star neuroscientist.”
- “Less ‘prestigious’ journals can contain more diverse research, by citing them we can shape a more just politics of citation.”
- “Australian reef research sceptic loses appeal against sacking.”
- “Former MasterChef contestant’s book pulled amid plagiarism accusations.”
- “Letter: Retraction required due to conflict of interest.”
- Here’s a picture worth a thousand citations (of a retracted paper).
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].