Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance.
The week at Retraction Watch featured:
- Paper on “suspicious activities” on India-China border retracted
- ‘[T]he authors plagiarised a large amount of text, but…retractions should not be used as a tool to punish authors’
- Court injunction forces gastro journal to slap expressions of concern on 40 articles about probiotics
- Expressions of concern mount for heart researchers over data provenance
- Wiley snafu costs an early-stage researcher his first paper
Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 208. There are now more than 32,000 retractions in our database — which now powers retraction alerts in EndNote, Papers, and Zotero. And have you seen our leaderboard of authors with the most retractions lately — or our list of top 10 most highly cited retracted papers?
Here’s what was happening elsewhere (some of these items may be paywalled, metered access, or require free registration to read):
- “Peer review is both the greatest strength and the greatest weakness of the scientific research system.”
- A “model of academia without pre-publication peer review.”
- “Why bogus science journals are thriving in the era of COVID-19.”
- “What to expect from post-pandemic publishing.”
- “COVID Is Changing the Dynamics of Medical Research and Publishing.”
- “Their conclusions came as a big surprise:” “New Mendel University Rector found guilty of misconduct.”
- “A thread on an AGU bulletin board emerged demanding that an AGU journal return to allowing the practice of comments and replies.”
- How consistent are peer reviewers?
- “Should research be trusted?” A recording of an interview with Ivan Oransky, our co-founder.
- “Higher education must stop covering up misconduct.”
- “A Jan. 19 letter to Tessmer — sent by the law firm Plunkett Cooney on behalf of Baker — demanded she retract her statements, which it described as ‘false and defamatory.'”
- “Correction of the scientific production: publisher performance evaluation using a dataset of 4844 PubMed retractions.”
- “Continued Use of Retracted Publications: Implications for Information Systems and Scientific Publishing.”
- “Tobacco publishing ban for researchers at industry-owned firms.”
- “Overall, 20% of respondents admitted sacrificing the quality of their publications for quantity, and 14% reported that funders interfered in their study design or reporting.”
- How many Ph.D. candidates are willing to publish findings based on fraudulent data?
- “What’s integrity got to do with it? Second-year experiences of the Path2Integrity e-learning programme.”
- Finish this: “The existence of Science Advances implies the existence of…“
- “At what point do academics forego citations for journal status?”
- Harvard researchers retract a paper from Nature Neuroscience.
- “Nature does open access,” courtesy of comedian Dr. Glaucomflecken.
- “Ivermectin for COVID-19: Addressing Potential Bias and Medical Fraud.”
- “Scientists may have an incentive to (artificially) make their abstracts more complex to read.”
- “Massive open index of scholarly papers launches.”
- “How the FDA could save 2,700 clinical trials from becoming research waste.”
- “How do things work at top econ journals, exactly? This is one weird-ass story.”
- There are at least 31 videos on YouTube explaining the h-index. Who knew?
- Please tell us what this paper on “brain washing systems” means.
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].