Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work? Thanks in advance.
The week at Retraction Watch featured:
- Stanford prof appeals order to pay $428K in legal fees after dropping defamation suit
- Journal sends cease-and-desist letter to a company marketing a homeopathic alternative to opioids
- How journal editors kept questionable data about women’s health out of the literature years before retractions
- One chiropractic manipulation patient injury. Two case reports. Two editor’s notes.
Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 260. There are more than 35,000 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):
- “German funder recommends ban on Russia coauthorship.”
- “The Alarming Rise of Predatory Conferences.”
- “Does peer review improve the statistical content of manuscripts?”
- “Reducing the residue of retractions in evidence synthesis: Ways to minimize inappropriate citation and use of retracted data.”
- “Blind spots on western blots: Assessment of common problems in western blot figures and methods reporting with recommendations to improve them.”
- “National interest test forces hundreds of grant rewrites.”
- “Removing author fees can help open access journals make research available to everyone.”
- “When they started, 45 articles were retracted each month. Then it increased to 300.”
- See highlights from the Peer Review Congress in our tweets.
- “Why do scientists sometimes falsify experimental results? How do they do it, and how do they get caught?” “The dark side of science.”
- “The role of journals and journalists, pre- and post-publication.” A PLOS Peer Review Week panel featuring our Ivan Oransky.
- “Unfortunately, it was impossible for us to find the original files after more than 20 years.” Earlier on PubPeer.
- “Journal will not retract influential paper by botanist accused of plagiarism and fraud.”
- “Medical journals broaden inquiry into potential heart research misconduct.”
- “Global Diversity of Authors, Editors, and Journal Ownership Across Subdisciplines of Psychology.”
- “No evidence that mandatory open data policies increase error correction.”
- “NGO retracts ‘waste colonialism’ report blaming Asian countries for plastic pollution.”
- “It takes a laboratory to avoid data loss.”
- “The research conduct spectrum for surgeons: your career in their rule bending hands?”
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].
Apparently I have to open an account to read the article on banning Russian co-authorship. Forget that. But I have to wonder what is served by explicitly politicizing science — perhaps the last refuge of diplomacy and trust in an increasingly polarized world. I coauthored over 60 papers with Russian collaborators in my research career, and since all of those papers were in the public domain, not one of them “gave Russia an advantage” in Cold War II. My collaborations did, however, give me some insights into Russian culture. How is that “unpatriotic”?
The German research story, re Russian coauthorship? Ridiculous. Did we have people proposing such blanket bans on coauthorship with Soviet authors during the Cold War?
At the moment I see no reference to the story other than the RP News site. DFG has not updated their overview page since March.
https://www.dfg.de/en/service/press/reports/2022/220317_attack_ukraine/index.html
RPN may have rewritten some version of this story
https://www.dfg.de/en/service/press/reports/2022/220317_attack_ukraine/index.html
with some poetic license. Or perhaps their article has an actual source, but there is nothing in the few lines displayed to the public that would suggest that.
@GLC … you missed the update within your first link, so don’t go just by calendrical dates that are part of URLs. I quote:
“(08.03.22) As a result of the Russian attack on Ukraine, the Deutsche Forschungs-
gemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) is suspending its German-Russian cooperation activities. The DFG is aware of the consequences of these measures and at the same time deeply regrets them from the academic perspective. Below you will find information provided by the DFG on what to do in connection with German-Russian funding proposals and cooperation projects.”