Weekend reads: Scientists won’t submit paper for deportation fears; watchdog: oversight lacking at EPA research group; ‘life after paper mills’

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• Math journal editors resign to launch open-access title ‘free from pressure or influence’
• Indian university’s channel on publisher’s platform disappears
• A ‘joke’: Paper with ‘completely irrelevant’ citations retracted
• Replication probe finds ‘statistically improbable data’ tied to institute in Bangladesh

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 500. There are more than 58,000 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):

• “Fearing paper on evolution might get them deported, scientists withdrew it.”
• “EPA Research Group Lacks Scientific Oversight, Watchdog Says.”
• “Life After Paper Mills“: James Heathers’ blog post about “the case of the journal Bioengineered.”
• Researchers find “hyperprolific authors tend to produce higher-impact publications on average compared to their peers.”
• Time for a letters to the editor preprint server? 
• “Integrity Concordat restates core values while adapting to change” in the UK.
• “Peer-Review for a Blog Post? My Experience with MetaROR.”
• “The American PubMed is the online library for doctors worldwide. What if the US censors it?”
• “Experts warn ‘AI-written’ paper is latest spin on climate change denial.”
• Researcher of paper on racial bias and newborn mortality rate excluded variable that “undermines the narrative,” his notes say.
• Among 143 replications of 56 experiments, less than half of biomedical research from Brazil was replicable, researchers found.
• “Professor sues MSU, administrators for removal from NIH-funded research.”
• Researchers find “many problems that exist in peer reviews of papers…also exist in peer reviews of peer reviews.”
• “Race to the Bottom: Competition and Quality in Science.”
• “A fight with [its journal] over academic freedom has put the ACSA in crisis.” A link to our coverage.
• “A Win in Ukraine’s Academic ‘Metadata War.’”
• Researchers find “lack of standardization and carelessness” in local ethics committees in Turkey. 
• “Threats to research integrity ‘a global, systemic problem.’”
• “German funder hits scientist with three-year ban on grant bids.”
• Should scientists try to repeat studies looking for a link between vaccines and autism?
• “India’s universities must address growing credibility problems.”
• “How much misconduct should there be in research?”
• “UK academia’s lack of language skills ‘imperils research integrity.’”
• “Peer Review Has Lost Its Human Face. So, What’s Next?”

Upcoming Talks

• “Retractions: On the Rise, But Not Enough” with our Ivan Oransky (April 21, Penn State)
• “Scientific Integrity and Retractions” with our Ivan Oransky (April 24, Georgia State University)

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