Would you consider a donation to support Weekend Reads, and our daily work?
The week at Retraction Watch featured:
- ‘Nonsensical content’: Springer Nature journal breaks up with a paper on a love story
- Publisher parts ways with editor of five journals who published his own studies on Islamic practices
- A publisher makes an error in a publication about errors
- The Singapore Sting: Why an activist published a fake paper on ‘LGBTQ+ child acceptance’
- Exclusive: Paper-mill articles buoyed Spanish dean’s research output
- Gift authorship common in psychology, survey suggests
Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to nearly 400. There are more than 46,000 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):
- Paper mills have taken to bribing journal editors, we reveal in a six-month investigation in Science.
- “Dana-Farber cancer researchers moving to retract one paper, correct others in broad investigation of manipulated data.”
- “It does strike me that this is a problem of the universities’ own making.” Our Ivan Oransky speaks to the New York Times about “The Next Battle in Higher Ed.”
- “Critics claim to find flaws in dozens of Alzheimer’s studies by Temple scientist.”
- “Can Academic Fraud Be Stopped?” Our Ivan Oransky appears on an episode of Freakonomics.
- “Rules won’t stop research misconduct in social science.”
- “Science’s fake-paper problem: high-profile effort will tackle paper mills.”
- “Is the academic social networking site ResearchGate still relevant?”
- “While conducting a coordinated set of repeat runs of human evaluation experiments in NLP, we discovered flaws in every single experiment we selected for inclusion…”
- “Whistleblowing microbiologist wins unfair dismissal case against USGS.”
- “Safeguarding scientific integrity: A case study in examining manipulation in the peer review process.”
- “Open Research Conversation on Editorial mass resignations: Collective action in the movement to open research. Also: See the RW Mass Resignations List.
- “Computational reproducibility of Jupyter notebooks from biomedical publications.”
- “Solidarity among Philosophers Leads to New Journal: Political Philosophy.”
- “Editing companies are stealing unpublished research to train their AI.”
- “Comparison of effect estimates between preprints and peer-reviewed journal articles of COVID-19 trials.”
- “Identifying Fabricated Networks within Authorship-for-Sale Enterprises.”
- “We’ve hit peak science, and that’s not good.”
- “Is Dan Ariely telling the truth?”
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].