Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance.
The week at Retraction Watch featured:
- Want to know whether that journal is scamming you? Introducing the Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker
- Cornell food marketing researcher who retired after misconduct finding is publishing again
- Urology researcher under investigation for double-dipping has another paper retracted
- A hare-raising expression of concern after an author hires a third party to get a paper published
- Former Weill Cornell cancer researcher up to 20 retractions; investigation’s findings are with Feds
- Widely touted abstract on ivermectin and COVID-19 retracted
Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 229. 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- A researcher in India earned a promotion late last month a day after one of her papers was retracted for image manipulation.
- “Peer reviewing is becoming more cavalier, self-serving and ignorant.”
- “A Major Science Journal Publisher Adds A Weird Notice To Every Paper. What’s Behind This?”
- “Controversial supplements researcher not guilty of misconduct, Canadian university concludes.”
- “However, retractions and self-correcting the literature at large are not factors influencing grant review, and dealing with retractions in reviewing grants is an open question for funders.”
- “Common, Costly, Preventable? NSF OIG Finds Pearls in Review of 10 Years of Plagiarism Cases.”
- “But Pizam’s honorary degree sparked a complaint, and since then, UCF has tightened the rules for who can claim the school’s prestigious honor.”
- Another retraction for Cassava Sciences. This follows five in March.
- “The results revealed an unprecedented error rate [in Google Scholar], with 279 of 281 (99.3%) examined references containing at least one error.”
- “After the misstatements were pointed out by STAT, Citak’s clinic agreed that the information was incorrect and they were taken down on Monday.”
- “An Ethical Exploration of Increased Average Number of Authors Per Publication.”
- “Last year, a VU scientist was found guilty of structurally committing plagiarism. But the name was kept secret.”
- “Bullshit in the Sustainability and Transitions Literature: a Provocation.”
- “Journal Runs Editorial Fraught With COVID Misinformation.”
- Are PubPeer comments related to the time it takes to retract a paper? Our #WCRI2022 talk.
- “The argument for adopting a jurisprudence platform for scientific misconduct.”
- “NAFDAC to Prof Iwu: Retract cure claims of your COVID-19 herbal product within 48 hrs or face sanctions.”
- How journalists can report effectively on retractions: A guide from The Open Notebook.
- “Russian Academics Aim to Punish Colleagues Who Backed Ukraine Invasion.”
- Does it help to alert authors that they have cited a retracted article? Here’s a randomized trial that tried to find out.
- “How to be a Research Detective – screening studies for fake research.”
- “We temporary retreat the paper by Groenewegen et al and will provide a revised version.”
- “Research Has a ‘Trash Island.’ Some Are Trying to Clean it Up.”
- “Analysis of publications by authors of Ukrainian institutes in Scopus-delisted titles.”
- “The continued visibility of removed articles poses a problem for scientific integrity because it risks the persistence of flawed research…”
- “If you ever feel in need of some light entertainment alongside insights into the decline of research integrity and the scientific method, try perusing a website called Retraction Watch.”
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].