Weekend reads: Retractions by Nobel Prize winners; privatizing peer review; fake mouse brains

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

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• Web of Science puts mega-journals Cureus and Heliyon on hold
• Hidden hydras: uncovering the massive footprint of one paper mill’s operations
• New engineering dean has two retractions for authorship manipulation
• Pain researcher in Italy up to seven retractions
• Authors sue Sage over “discriminatory” retractions of papers cited in abortion pill case

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 400. There are more than 50,000 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 list of nearly 100 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):

• In anticipation of Nobel Prize Week (next week), take a look at some retractions by Nobel Prize winners.
• “Why Privatizing Peer Review is the Future: Lessons from Institutional Review Boards.”
• “Fake mouse brains put star researchers in trouble” after employee admits to manipulating results.
• Deborah Kelly, of Penn State, has had a fourth paper retracted after being banned from doing research on campus.
• “The benefits of diamond are not crystal clear.”
• “In which fields can ChatGPT detect journal article quality?”
• “Peer review by committee? New journal rethinks old model.”
• “In response to the identified shortcomings of existing AI text detectors, we present a countermeasure to improve the robustness against this form of manipulation.”
• “Does the African academy need its own citation index?”
• “The paradox of competition: How funding models could undermine the uptake of data sharing practices.”
• “The case for rethinking peer review in REF.”
• “Reviewers are overwhelmed (good reviewers, even more so). Reviewers are cranky (all of those who review my papers certainly are).”
• A site explains “why we removed an article about a link between exam results and ceiling height.”
• A dermatologist researchers named “hyperprolific” is one of five who listed associations with Vietnamese universities.
• “A study found Facebook’s algorithm didn’t promote political polarization. Critics have doubts.”
• “Cooperative open access can right many of publishing’s wrongs.”
• Suspended law professor says Center for Civic Education is “misleading the public again, there is no valid decision on plagiarism.”
• “Retractions Have Become Politicized,” argues editor who resigned in protest.
• “Student sues Cambridge over ‘stolen work’” by her PhD supervisor. 
• “Data integrity concerns flagged in 130 women’s health papers — all by one co-author.”
• “Gender inequity persists among journal chief editors,” researchers find.
• A journal’s assessment of retracted article on basketball “‘has shown that all references cited were not relevant to the text.’ OK, then.
• A researcher says he was “Priced Out of Publishing in Bioethics Journals.”
• 26-year-old article retracted for image reuse “from a previous publication of the research group.”
• Two decades of retraction data provide “insight into areas where scientific integrity may be compromised.”
• “Do Changes in Journal Rank Influence Publication Output?” Researchers find that “gold open access could speed up the detection and retraction of flawed articles.”
• “Company misled investors on possible Alzheimer’s drug, SEC charges.”
• UK Research and Innovation “tells reviewers they must not use generative AI.”
• “Fraud-hunting detectives gathered to decontaminate scientific literature.”
• “Science Editors Raise New Doubts on Meta’s Claims It Isn’t Polarizing.”
• “Unleashing the power of AI in science-key considerations for materials data preparation.”
• A podcast episode dives “deep into the dilemma – and what many see as the pervasive mindset – known simply as publish or perish.”
• “A view on two rapidly growing journals” using a research database. Our coverage of Cureus and Heliyon.
• Researchers present a “more efficient means to scrutinize” “potentially retractable” papers.
• “The controversy involving the rector of the University of Salamanca reveals the defects of the research system that governs academics.”
• “Cancer conference run by division of the Economist was cancelled after links with tobacco industry were uncovered.”

Two upcoming talks:

• Oct. 9 (virtual): “Perspectives on Communicating Evolving Health and Science Information,” featuring our Ivan Oransky.
• Oct. 10 (in-person and virtual) “Advancing Trust in Science: Institutional Obligations to Promote Research Integrity,” featuring our Ivan Oransky

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].