Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance.
The week at Retraction Watch featured:
- Journal about ‘ambient intelligence’ retracts more than 50 papers at once
- The “internet may be a challenging venue”: Biomedical engineering group up to four retractions
- Drug researchers in Russia have four papers subjected to expressions of concern
- ‘Inadvertently published’ paper by pharma employee retracted almost a year later
Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 227. There are more than 34,000 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):
- A thesis on stereotypes about female drivers, with a nod to infamous fraudster Diederik Stapel.
- “First Theranos, and now AI researchers, are being opaque about their work. Should we trust them?” On “stealth research.”
- “AI-generated images could make it almost impossible to detect fake papers.”
- “Journals slow to act despite evidence of scientific fraud or misconduct.”
- “It should be easy, shouldn’t it? Impact is impact is impact. Well, no…“
- “UKRI chased universities to act over Researchfish tweets.”
- “The integrity of the research record: a mess so big and so deep and so tall.”
- “Polish president stifles genocide researcher’s professorship bid.”
- China’s “Aims to move away from metrics-based evaluations floundering, study finds.”
- A science critic earns two new middle names, courtesy of the American Psychological Association.
- “NEJM, other journals: provide more transparency about conflicts of interest or don’t publish conflicted articles.”
- “UK rejects ‘inexplicable’ price hike for Nature journals: Universities seeking significant savings after Elsevier victory.”
- “When a journal is both at the ‘top’ and the ‘bottom’: the illogicality of conflating citation-based metrics with quality.”
- “US must urgently correct ethnic and racial disparities in clinical trials, says report.”
- “How do researchers [in India] perceive research misbehaviors?”
- Time to abolish “revise and resubmit,” which is “time consuming, demoralizing, and stifling of creativity?
- “Are Your Participants Real? Dealing with Fraud in Recruiting Older Adults Online.”
- “Improving research integrity: a framework for responsible science communication.”
- “A Black Doctor Tried To Diversify Medicine. Then She Lost Her Job.”
- An obituary is retracted.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution 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].