Weekend reads: Should ‘peer reviewers be paid?’; Kim Kardashian and conflicts of interest; scandal costs millions in grants

Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance.

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• COVID-19-vitamin D paper retracted by Springer Nature journal
• Study on reducing parents’ anxiety about children’s circumcision retracted
• More than 300 at once: Publisher retracts entire conference proceedings
• What we’ve learned from public records requests. Please help us file more.
• Authors blame ‘unintentional oversight’ for including image of deceased patient in paper
• 8 years after three papers are flagged — and after losing original correspondence — PLOS ONE retracts

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 221. There are more than 33,000 retractions in our database — which powers retraction alerts in EndNote, LibKey, 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):

• “Should peer reviewers be paid to review academic papers?” Earlier: “I do peer review and I want you to pay me four hundred and fifty dollars.”
• “What Kim Kardashian teaches us about conflicts of interest ignored during the pandemic.”
• “The QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute has given up $3.4 million in grants as it continues to count the cost of a scandal involving Professor Mark Smyth.”
• “The moral panic over the impact of so-called predatory publishers continues unabated.”
• “A new nonprofit wants to rewrite the playbook for how the U.S. government funds science.”
• “While preprints accelerate dissemination of findings, their increased use could challenge strategies for risk mitigation at the publication stage.”
• “For US tenure to survive, academics must take peer reviewing seriously.”
• “Former graduate student voices concerns for misconduct in bioengineering research lab.”
• “A descriptive study of a prolific papermill that combines crystallography and medicine.”
• “Unethical studies of ivermectin for covid-19.”
• “Kashmir University PhD scholar arrested for ‘highly provocative and seditious’ magazine article.”
• “Maintaining Academic Integrity of our Journal.”
• “Scientists Question Data Behind an Experimental Alzheimer’s Drug.”
• “UA Little Rock officials being investigated after research misconduct allegations are made.” And part two.
• “Honesty is a core scientific virtue, but what does it require of us?”
• “Scientific publication speed and retractions of COVID-19 pandemic original articles.”
• “UK Funding Agency Apologizes for Role in Researchfish Controversy.”
• “Punished for plagiarism, Dhaka University teacher Samia seeks early retirement.”
• “The Madras high court has dismissed a peculiar plea moved by a professor challenging his own appointment as member of the screening-cum-evaluation and selection committee…”
• The “authorship disparity chasm” persists at top medical journals.
• Why one researcher says every lab should include contrarians.
• “When You’re a Victim of Academic Plagiarism: This is how it really feels.” And a take from a decade ago.

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a one-time tax-deductible contribution by PayPal or by Square, or a monthly tax-deductible donation by Paypal 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].