Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?
The week at Retraction Watch featured:
- Meet Retraction Watch’s two new journalists
- Elsevier denies AI use in response to evolution journal board resignations
- Biotech company agrees to pay $4 million to settle data falsification allegations
- Science paper by Toronto lab retracted
- The 14 universities with publication metrics researchers say are too good to be true
Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 450.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):
- “Journal retracts Thermo Fisher Scientific study after ethical concerns.”
- “Please don’t cite this editorial,” an experiment from our Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus.
- “‘As of my last knowledge update’: How is content generated by ChatGPT infiltrating scientific papers published in premier journals?”
- Another ivermectin-COVID-19 retraction – the drug’s 12th — joins the 467 retractions of COVID-19 papers on our list.
- “90% of scientific research is crap.”
- “‘WithdrarXiv’ database of 14,000 retracted preprints launches.”
- Researchers look at strategies to “detect integrity issues” in a journal “significantly impacted by fraudulent submissions.”
- The Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections issues “its own set of recommendations on what it calls “foreseeably uninformative” research.”
- “Scientists don’t want to get scooped—and It’s hurting science.”
- “Using mixed methods research to study research integrity.”
- “Open science is a spectrum and we must push for greater inclusivity.”
- “‘Precocious’ early-career scientists with high citation counts proliferate.”
- “How one foundation changed its approach to diversify grant recipient institutions.”
- “‘Potential’ to share more research on ‘underused’ YouTube.”
- “Plagiarism allegations cloud” college chief selection process.
- “Flawed assumptions could be spoiling cancer immunotherapy research.”
- “Predatory journals: what can we do to protect their prey?”: Advice from editors.
- Citations to retracted papers often don’t acknowledge that they’re retracted, researchers find.
- “Identifying and analyzing extremely productive authors in intensive care medicine.”
- “Scientific publications face credibility crisis.”
- “Publisher and journal reciprocity for peer review: Not so much.”
- “Navigating the complexities of Alzheimer’s clinical trials: The perils of small molecule studies and the risk of fraudulent practices.”
- “Preprints often make news. Many people don’t know what they are.”
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].