Weekend reads: NEJM’s racist past; ‘journal editors are like gods’; Harvard accused of pushing out misinformation researcher for criticizing Meta

Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• Cyberstalking pits Harvard professor against PubPeer
• Third retraction imminent for Harvard-affiliated sports research group
• Wiley to stop using “Hindawi” name amid $18 million revenue decline

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to over 375. There are more than 45,000 retractions in The Retraction Watch Database — which is now part of Crossref. The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker now contains well over 200 titles. And have you seen our leaderboard of authors with the most retractions lately — or our list of top 10 most highly cited retracted papers? Or The Retraction Watch Mass Resignations List?

Here’s what was happening elsewhere (some of these items may be paywalled, metered access, or require free registration to read):

• “New England Journal of Medicine reckons with its racist past and complicity in slavery.”
• “Journal editors are like gods – but I would rather be a mere mortal.”
• “A Star Misinformation Scholar Says Harvard Pushed Her Out for Criticizing Meta.”
• “The regulator said the investigator…failed to adhere to several requirements in the study protocol for six subjects.”
• “A teacher at Begum Rokeya University in Rangpur has been accused of plagiarizing 102 research papers published by several reputed universities of different countries.”
• “How sexist is science? The findings are more complicated than is often reported.”
• “Is AI leading to a reproducibility crisis in science?”
• “Research Integrity: Where We Are and Where We Are Heading.”
• “Reviewing a review.”
• “The evolution of scientific publishing.”
• In Australia, “Call to Bolster Governance of Research Misconduct.”
• “Paper mills: a novel form of publishing malpractice affecting psychology.”
• “In defense of quantitative metrics in researcher assessments.”
• “The quizzical failure of a nudge on academic integrity education: a randomized controlled trial.”
• “When Authorship Becomes a Burden: Learning About Authorship Issues in Scientific Articles.”
• “NIH puts hold on $30 million trial of potential stroke drug” three days after a Science investigation.
• “Spain wants to change how it evaluates scientists—and end the ‘dictatorship of papers.’”
• “Preprints, conspiracy theories and the need for platform governance.” On a new paper.
• “New ‘Meta-Ranking’ of Philosophy Journals.”
• “A Venture Capitalist for Better Science.”
• “JNeurosci joins open peer review trend but keeps opt-out.”
• “How to stop academic fraudsters.”
• “Leading scholarly database listed hundreds of papers from ‘hijacked’ journals.”
• “UCC clarifies Prof. George K. T. Oduro’s PhD plagiariasm and rape allegations.”
• “The downside to women academics’ ethical publishing choices.”
• “Scientists in Discredited Alcohol Study Will Not Advise U.S. on Drinking Guidelines.”
• “The replication crisis doesn’t have a simple solution.” On the problems plaguing “nudge” research.
• “How to cover academic research fraud and errors:” Takeaways from Elisabeth Bik, Jodi Cohen, and our Ivan Oransky.

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, subscribe to our free daily digest or paid weekly update, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, or add us to your RSS reader. If you find a retraction that’s not in The Retraction Watch Database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].