Weekend reads: More retractions at Columbia; ‘an epidemic of scientific fraud’; when articles cite retracted papers

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

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• Do some IQ data need a ‘public health warning?’ A paper based on a controversial psychologist’s data is retracted
• Controversial pyramid paper retracted when authors turn out to have radiocarbon-dated nearby dirt
• Exclusive: PLOS ONE to correct 1,000 papers, add author proof step
• Paper cited by article at center of lawsuit for criticizing Splenda earns an expression of concern

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 400. There are more than 47,000 retractions in The Retraction Watch Database — which is now part of Crossref. The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker now contains more than 250 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? What about The Retraction Watch Mass Resignations List — or our new list of papers with evidence they were written by ChatGPT?

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

• “More Studies by Columbia Cancer Researchers Are Retracted: The studies, pulled because of copied data, illustrate the sluggishness of scientific publishers to address serious errors, experts said.”
• “We are in the middle of an epidemic of scientific fraud that is seriously compromising research.”
• A study finds that “publications citing retracted articles were more often retracted.”
• “If it’s the first time you’ve seen a really weird paper get published, I can see why it would capture your attention.” But “it’s all sort of mind-numbingly routine at this point.”
• “When I see fields that don’t have as many retractions, I’m reasonably sure that’s because nobody is looking.” Two BBC appearances by our Ivan Oransky (starting at ~46:00) and here at ~40:00.
• “Response to: ‘Bad bibliometrics don’t add up for research or why research publishing policy needs sound science.'” The strain saga continues.
• “UCLA Punished a Prominent Scientist for ‘Destructive and Harmful Conduct.’ She Says It’s ‘Unjust Persecution.’”
• “Stanford Math-Education Expert Has ‘Reckless Disregard for Accuracy,’ Complaint Alleges.”
• “Guest opinion: Scientific fraud puts Utah children’s safety at risk.”
• “The Latest ‘Crisis’ — Is the Research Literature Overrun with ChatGPT- and LLM-generated Articles?”
• “Lack of experimentation has stalled the debate on open peer review.”
• “Is AI ready to mass-produce lay summaries of research articles?”
• “Ending profiteering from publicly-funded research: Tackling the academic publishing oligopoly.”
• “$160K Libel Verdict for Ex-Student Based on Professor’s Research Misconduct Allegations.”
• “Drug company and former director are convicted of submitting falsified data to MHRA.”
• “Superconductor Scientist Engaged in Research Misconduct, Probe Finds.”
• Our Ivan Oransky appears on the Unleashed podcast.
• “An Influential Economics Forum Has a Troubling Surplus of Trolls.” A story on criticisms on the site in 2016.
• “Academics boycott Wiley gender journal after ‘anti-woke’ shift.”
• “The aspiring rector who wrote four paragraphs and cited himself 100 times.” Our coverage from 2022.
• What is publication integrity, “why does it matter, how it is safeguarded and how could we do better?”
• “Monitoring AI-Modified Content at Scale: A Case Study on the Impact of ChatGPT on AI Conference Peer Reviews.”
• “Universities need to stop hiding from research integrity problems,” says the editor in chief of Science. We and others agree.
• “Participant Fraud in Virtual Qualitative Substance Use Research.”
• “Retracted research papers not a concern, says deputy minister.”
• “David versus Goliath: Early career researchers in an unethical publishing system.”
• “Washington Monthly publishes Israeli writer’s coexistence piece retracted by leftist literary journal Guernica.”

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].