Dear RW readers, it’s not too late to make an end-of-year donation to support our work.
The week at Retraction Watch featured:
- Journals investigating dozens of papers by leading Canadian urologists
- Finland Publication Forum will downgrade hundreds of Frontiers and MDPI journals
- A look back at 2024 at Retraction Watch, and forward to 2025
- Evolution journal editors resign en masse to protest Elsevier changes
Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 450. 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 300 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):
- The top 10 stories at Retraction Watch in 2024.
- 31 novels about research misconduct to read over the holidays.
- “How retractions get weaponized on social media.” A link to our Raoult coverage.
- “Generative artificial intelligence and academic writing: friend or foe?”: An article written using AI.
- “Crime pays: A paper mill offered” an economist “$250,000 per year.”
- “‘Being Really Confidently Wrong’: Qualitative Researchers’ Experiences of Methodologically Incongruent Peer Review Feedback.”
- Researcher looks at “[r]etraction of biomedical publications with Tunisian affiliation.”
- Confusion over hospital “protocols leads to lab misconduct involving animals.” The lab has since resumed its projects.
- “Research Integrity was the Leading Topic of Conversation at the STM Innovation Day.”
- “Why Scientific Hoaxes Aren’t Always Useless.”
- 11 university professors accused of paper mill activity.
- “Survey on the current practice of research ethics committees in the Czech academic environment.”
- “Examining ‘Salami slicing’ publications as a side-effect of research performance evaluation.”
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].