Weekend reads: MAHA report cites nonexistent studies; RFK Jr. threatens publishing access; can ‘zombie papers’ be killed?

Dear RW readers, can you spare $25?

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

• ‘More of the same’: Journals, trade website refuse to correct critiques of book on Alzheimer’s fraud
• Meet David Robert Grimes and Mariana Ribeiro, the first two Retraction Watch Sleuths in Residence
• IQ study retracted in fallout from decades-old misconduct report. See our previous coverage
• Paper on “wokeness” and mental health retracted for political reasons, authors say

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 500. There are more than 59,000 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 MAHA Report Cites Studies That Don’t Exist.” See also NY Times, USA Today, CNN coverage featuring our Ivan Oransky.
• “RFK Jr. threatens to bar government scientists from publishing in leading medical journals.”
• “Killing the ‘zombie papers’: Can we rid science of retracted articles?“
• “Scientific conferences are leaving the US amid border fears.”
• In MMWR, “the CDC keeps publishing papers after firing scientists who made the research possible.”
• Embattled university includes “15-word grammatically incorrect sentence” in “hundreds of research papers” and cites other Saveetha work. 
• “What does Trump’s call for ‘gold standard science’ really mean?”
• “New research reveals Australian authors say no to AI using their work – even if money is on the table.”
• Review “covering two decades of retractions in Latin America” using the RW Database found over two thirds of retracted articles “continued to be cited.”
• “The effect of APC discounts on Ukraine’s participation in gold open access journals.”
• “I remain convinced that most researchers in India are honest.” 
• “In extremely rare move, Harvard revokes tenure and cuts ties with star business professor,” who “Maintains Her Innocence.”
• Do mistakes in one study influence subsequent ones and prevent science from self-correcting?
• “Scientific Accountability: Detecting Salient Features of Retracted Articles,” featuring the RW Database. 
• “The FDA’s device center denied data from two third-party testing companies in China due to falsified or invalid information.”
• Data from journal finds “persistent and significant gap in the inclusion” of female authors. 
• “A non-anonymised review of annual statements on research misconduct from UK institutions in 2023-4, with a focus on research fraud.”
• “Female authorship trends in a high-impact Canadian medical journal.”
• “French trial sponsors are urged to bolster clinical trial transparency.”
• “The state of preprinting in Europe and the Netherlands.”
• “SciPost at a crossroads”: Our sustainability is “under threat.” An open letter from SciPost’s founder.
• “Academic Research Integrity Investigations Must be Independent, Fair, and Timely.”
• “The Animal Farm reality is that some research papers are more equal than others.” And: “A Convenient Piece of Junk Science.” See also “The Scientific Literature Can’t Save You Now” by our Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky earlier this year.
• “‘It’s messy and it’s massive’: How has the open science debate developed in the post-COVID era?” And: “If open science is the answer, what’s the question?“
• “Fraudulent studies are undermining the reliability of systematic reviews: on the prevalence of problematic images in preclinical depression studies.”
• “Reading the Leaves of Publishing Speed: The Cases of Hindawi, Frontiers, and PLOS.”
• How have scientific journals been involved in setting ethical norms in research? A look inside Nature and Springer Nature.
• “Conspiracies in Academia? Stand Up Against Defamations of Open Access Journals!“
• Pinot mill: “Gangs spend £500,000 faking wine bottles and labels.”

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].