Weekend reads: Alzheimer’s researcher resigns; bad stats in biology; ethical reasoning in open science

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• Mass resignations hit psychotherapy journal after publisher replaced editors.
• Undisclosed conflicts, lightning-fast peer review: One Alzheimer’s journal’s role in a failed drug.
• ‘The fraud was not subtle’: Chemist blames students after ten papers retracted.
• Editors resign from Springer immunology journal to launch nonprofit title.
• Researcher removed from journal masthead, loses three more papers.

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 500. There are more than 55,000 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):

• “Alzheimer’s researcher alleged to have doctored images is leaving” university. A link to Charles Piller’s book excerpt about the associated controversy.
• In experiments needing animal ethics committees, “only 10 percent of the articles analyzed presented correct statistical methodology,” researchers found. 
• Open science practices “neither predicted [irresponsible research behavior] nor was this relationship moderated by ethical reasoning,” researchers find. 
• British nonprofit urges medical journals to reject research that isn’t representative or inclusive.”
• The UK Department for Works and Pensions “annual statement on compliance with the Concordat to Support Research Integrity.”
• “The case for compensating peer reviewers”: A response to commentary on reciprocity for peer review. 
• “How are researchers using AI? Survey reveals pros and cons for science.”
• Tech company VP explains “why research integrity is crucial for upholding society and a healthy democracy.”
• Researchers look into “Hungarian university students’ perceptions of plagiarism.”
• “Article Retraction in Otolaryngology Journals: A Thirty Year Analysis,” featuring the RW Database.
• How libraries — and librarians — safeguard scientific publishing. An interview with our Ivan Oransky.
• “Does the glut of retractions mean science is in crisis? Hardly.”
• “Halted research, disciplined doctors: internal audit finds Kaiser ignored patient protections in Northern California study.”
• “Open-access journal sanctioned over metadata ‘manipulations.'”
• Researchers look at “implications of paper retractions and journal delistings.” Featuring the RW Database. 
• Scientist cited for misconduct during 2019 “Sharpiegate” picked to head NOAA.
• “‘Salami slicing’ and improper authorship plague Italian research.”
• “Despite being low in number, positive tweets on retracted papers remained stable after retraction.”
• “Scholar allegedly plagiarized by MSU dean says he wasn’t consulted during exonerating review.”
• “[H]ow NSF is scouring research grants for violations of Trump’s orders.”
• “A shady business operated out of a British mansion is buying up scientific journals to earn millions by publishing mediocre studies.”
• Researchers “encountered a surprising variance in practice and attitudes towards the use of statisticians on research ethics committees.”
• A study of the evolution of Clarivate’s Highly Cited Researchers list from 2001-2023. 
• “CDC orders pullback of new scientific papers involving its researchers, source says.”
• “Study designs could be improved using an expert review from a qualified statistician”: Researchers look into how many research ethics committees use a statistician in Australia. 
• “Carbon monoxide blamed for deaths of 22 research monkeys at troubled supplier.”
• 20,000 scientists are “publishing an ‘implausibly high’ number of papers in scholarly journals,” study says.
• “Removal of DEI content from a microbiology group’s website shows reach of Trump executive orders.”
• “We will not retract published articles on request by an author on the basis that they contain so-called banned words,” says the BMJ.
• “Scamming science: predatory journals and the academic rat race.”
• “Does hype really sell claims of research impact?”

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, 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].